WHen it comes to web applications, I think it depends. But in most cases, fluid layouts work very well with them as well.

The Globe and Mail. I really like this. Only the major, middle column is fluid:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

Forbes
While nothing is fluid here, they’ve built an 800 pixel wide site, with a 200+ right-side add-on for people wanting, utilizing interactive features (those more likely to have bigger monitors, although the rest of this site is in need of an overhaul, especially as it loses focus at the bottom):
http://www.forbes.com/

Good input. I agree with you: in those cases, well-thought and developed hybrids can form a very good solution.

Whether liquid or elastic, you can’t “control” the layout. If you can’t “control” the layout, what good are all the focus groups, usability tests and design mockups that you’ve spent $X on?

In addition, you are neglecting what pays the bills: advertising. Publishers need to know where things are likely to show up on the majority of monitors on the majority of screen resolutions. You can’t get it perfect and I’ve seen some hybrid models work ok — one elastic column and everything else fixed, for example.

So yes, for the user, maximizing that interface is great. But I’d also like my magazines to be ad free and fit in my pocket. But that’s not going to happen. Sometimes there is a method behind all the madness, and while the end user is a HUGE factor, it’s usually about the bottom line.

I’m not saying that a 100% width is the solution; I’m arguing for elastic widths. And if you design a web site with lots of images, you often use a grid, right? You know you can scale the parts of the grid proportionally then? And then its optional to scale the images if you want as well.

I’m not saying that we don’t need designers, just as I hope you understand that you need web developers. But each has to be aware of the other role’s skill sets, possibilities and obstacles.

ReaderX,

The DPI problem is a difficult one, and unfortunately I don’t have any good answer to give you right now.

Some CSS designs essentially break under this condition. Many graphics start to look very pixelated. But, then, I noticed some non-CSS, table-HTML sites look just fine after this magnification.

What are we designers/developers doing wrong?

I’ve been searching for straight-talk for just over a week now and cannot find any answers other than “put your Windows back to 96 DPI” which is not a valid solution. The number of people with 120 DPI is growing fast.

I don’t understand where to begin mitigating this problem.

Also, what about image heavy websites?
When I get a brief from a client and they want 234726 images shown on one page I need to design to a fixed width. Therefor I have to know what the best width to design for is. But hey, what the hey would I know?

…maybe us designers should let you developers design for a day…imagine that…a the web with no colour, no sound, no animation and no images, just efficient, scalable text.

Absolutely, some sort of minimum width has to be established. Otherwise, things will just get unusable.

Thanks for your comment. I agree that most web sites should really fit within at least a width of 800 pixels.

Ben,

Interesting comment.

I’d disagree with using either of max-width min-width, especially if set to a px size. Anyone using a browser outside of this arbitrary limit effectively gets a fixed-width website.

As long as the web browser window is the same size, yes. But that goes for every visitor for any resolution. As soon as the web browser window is resized, the web site will adapt, and that is, to me, the beauty of an elastic web site.

Sergei,

I wouldn’t say it’s about getting those customers, but instead convincing them of the benefits and how their business/goals will gain from it.

* The web browser is the application.
* The web page is the data or file being viewed.

Changing the width of the application should change the width of the data accordingly. This is surely the most intuitive way for an application to work? Think Notepad with word wrapping turned on.

I’d disagree with using either of max-width min-width, especially if set to a px size. Anyone using a browser outside of this arbitrary limit effectively gets a fixed-width website.

Consider the increasing number of high-resolution screens. The physical size of a pixel in two different monitors can be radically different. For a letter to appear the same size in both monitors, it will need to be a different pixel size. This means the number of characters per pixel in width will differ, making a limit based on px end up at a different number of characters.

This is particularly important for accessibility, too. Some users with reading problems (such as dyslexia) can find extremely long lines easier to read than shorter lines since they have to move down the next line less often. Equally, some users benefit from very short line lengths as a narrower “sea of whitespace” can form.

Someone with vision impairments using a high-resolution screen will need letters which are many more pixels higher than normal. Because the text is so big, they’ll also need a layout width which is massive when measured in px.

You might think it’s safe to use min-width. But I don’t think so…

In some devices, such as the PSP, the text size is smaller than it would be on a desktop PC when measured in px. As such, the layout might not fall apart at this small width in devices like this.

Similarly, users of low-resolution devices (such as 800×600 desktop PCs) might reduce their text size by a notch to get a more comfortable physical size for the letters. And they might like browsing with a sidebar open, or they might be using Opera and tile two windows vertically, or they might be using Windows and tile two browser windows vertically. This website’s layout actually works alright in a 400px browser window if you are using a smaller-than-default text size and turn off the min-width.

But I’m glad I’m not alone in thinking about monitor sizes, desktop sizes, browser sizes and web page layout sizes!

Personally, I strongly prefer a site to fit the 800×600 px window. Very few sites are demanding enough to require my whole desktop. Maybe an ebay or amazon or a portal-style site with news feeds, email, photo gallery, etc. But most have specific information which require 2 columns of text. Please don’t monopolize my desktop with your freaking blog!

Nope. It’s just based on personal experience and from talking to a lot of computer users and other web developers.

Maybe 50% of the world’s web surfers use maximized windows; the rest use a size to their liking.

Have you got a source for that?

I’d only use JavaScript-dependant layout as a last resort. If you want to have an optimized layout with a 1024 width but let it go down to 800 as well, why not just use CSS and let it be elastic inbetween.