convince my boss!

[jreitz]

Ok, I am working on a redesign to my company's site. The design issue at hand is this:

The pages on the site currently expand with the browser (tables that are percentages and when the site fills the screen no matter your monitor size, etc... It’s an accessibility nightmare, but that doesn’t bother too many people around here.) In fact it works like this site does.

I really am not a big fan of this design type, and it doesn’t work well for our type of site. It tends to build in large empty spaces in other parts of the site.

MY boss, likes they way it works now. Anyone have any boss friendly ideas to convince her the site would be better at a constrained specific size. Like 700 pixels wide and that’s that. Or ways I might cheat her directive?

Sincerely,
Frustrated...

[justame]

Originally posted by jreitz
It tends to build in large empty spaces in other parts of the site.
Anyone have any boss friendly ideas to convince her the site would be better at a constrained specific size. Like 700 pixels wide and that’s that.


jre...
first of alll...gottta remember the 'boss' is just a lways® right...lol...ummm sorta like customers...UNLESS of course you can just a show/illustrate® to them thattt things twould be more betterer done just a nother® way...:O)))

/me would just a suggest® you 'print' off just a page® on the site the 'bosses' way...aka pick one thattt showwws those 'large empty spaces' n' thennn just a print® off just a page® using your 700 wide table...
mayyybe thattt twould just a help® your case???

just a goodluck® :O)))

[Roy Sinclair]

Gee, most of the regulars here are trying to get people to STOP building to constrained sizes. Of course we also dislike the use of tables for layout purposes but that's another story.

I don't think you're going to find a lot of help here to go the direction you're thinking but maybe if you explain why you'd prefer a fixed size layout we can either convince you not to go that route or you can convince us that it's a good thing.

[Vladdy]

Restricting the width for text containing elements (and therefore for most web pages) can improve readability, however:
1. It should be specified in font related units (ex or em)
2. It should be used as a max-width not width.

[me']

Liquid vs. Fixed design has been discussed a lot a while back, here's a quick Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=liquid+vs.+fixed&btnG=Google+Search). As for table based design, here's an article (www.hotdesign.com/seybold) targeted at bosses.

[Spookster]

And here is a page from a site I am currently working on as an example of a fluid design that uses CSS for layout. Works the same way as using tables with percentage widths. If you wanted you could use proportional fonts so that the fonts adjust to the resolution as well.

http://www.designqueue.com/misc/dentist.htm

Using tables for layouts and using fixed size layouts should be avoided. I won't even start on the reasons you shouldn't use tables but as far as fixed size you shouldn't do that because the site will be harder to read for people at really high resolutions or really low resolutions.

[whackaxe]

700px? what abot people with 1600*1200 screens. thats gonna suck for them. better think liquid ;)

[jreitz]

whew.. I didnt think I would get quite this much feedback, but I guess I should say, I am defending the fixed size because of the empty spaces. I am more of a design preson than a "well its what the book says i should do" and there are ups and downs to that i am sure.

Ive looked at alot of mainstream sites for backup here and many many of them used a fixed size. cnn.com, aol.com, cnet.com and so on.

I get the argument about screen res and size, but am confident in my stats over the last year they are REALLY in favor of a few sizes and certianly not 1600x1200. The site is amied at joe avg. not computer kids. Most our users wouldnt even know how to change their res from the factory setting.

But, I thank you all for the comments, and I will take them seriously, as It may be better to apease the boss and lose out on some kickin' design than to fight it and make myself less assessible.

[spufi]

The reason those sites use fixed width is largely based on the fact that they use so many images. Images can be a real pain to play with when creating a fluid layout. They figure it's much easier to just set a fixed width and then this way they will always know how much room they have to play with.

[jreitz]

We use a lot too... youve put into words what i guess i wasnt able.

[Roy Sinclair]

If you're a design person more than a technical then maybe some inspiration will help you, take a look at http://www.csszengarden.com/. Try the links under "Select a Design" and see how much the page can be changed simply by altering the CSS, never touching the HMTL. (Don't miss the "next designs" link, there are a lot of designs and only a few are shown on a page).

[whackaxe]

images are easy to use in a liquid design. just make them big enough for your avrage user (even though i'm on 800*600, i'm going to start designing for 1024-768 minimum. promise :p)

[rmedek]

Just my two cents... I'm not a very proficient web designer or anything, but a lot of people (not web programmers or designers, just Joe Browser) I asked for design advice preferred fixed design, not liquid. They thought that the designs looked a lot nicer and was more consistent (especially when they resized the window, one friend said, "it's like they're trying to force you to view everything at once."). I know that the trend for coders is liquid layout (more accessible and ui friendly) but at some point we have to stop and realize that we are designing for them, not us :)

I think the important thing is to design a site that compromises design and functionality... a site can be functional as can be, but if it isn't pretty to look at and interesting to visit there's a good chance it's not going to be visited all that often. And of course, vice versa...

-Rich

P.S. Remember-- a lot of these designers who preach "accessibility" are the same ones who have a light pastel text on a white background... who the heck can read that stuff? ;)

[Skyzyx]

Originally posted by spufi
The reason those sites use fixed width is largely based on the fact that they use so many images. Images can be a real pain to play with when creating a fluid layout. They figure it's much easier to just set a fixed width and then this way they will always know how much room they have to play with.

When you boil it all down, it's a matter of preference. Personally, I prefer fixed-width pages. Not only my own, but in the ones I read as well.

Another option is to use a stylesheet switcher to switch between fixed and liquid widths. That something that I'm working on, myself.

[Kiwi]

I am neither technical nor design oriented. My first loyalty lies to business (well, it's not quite that simple, but we don't have time to go into it).

The first thing that sprang into my mind was, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Is there anything actually wrong with the current design, beyond the fact that some people use a different type of design (and some don't) and you have a preference for a different type of design?

Prove that your ideas would actually improve the efficacy of the website in whatever function it is meant to serve the business. Or prove that the current design philosophy is ineffective. Otherwise it sounds like an awful lot of work that would serve business purpose.

[whackaxe]

ya know, csszengarden puts the smack down when it comes to css. it's hrd to learn(to its fukk potential) its a pain to hack (for differnt browsers) but you wouldnt believe how much time it can save you. you can add skinability to your site just like that by dynamicly generating the css link. CSS is the futer, bet jump on the bandwagon.

as for images, unless you use vector grpahics, then yuor stuck with size problems. the ebst compromise is using 1024*768 as standard (not making it too big for 800*600, there ar still peeps like me on that res).

[spufi]

Originally posted by Skyzyx
When you boil it all down, it's a matter of preference. Personally, I prefer fixed-width pages. Not only my own, but in the ones I read as well.

Another option is to use a stylesheet switcher to switch between fixed and liquid widths. That something that I'm working on, myself.

Add to the fact that you could even make a text only version, a standard version, and for hi speed connections have a image heavy version too.

[me']

ya know, csszengarden puts the smack down when it comes to css. it's hrd to learn(to its fukk potential) its a pain to hack (for differnt browsers) but you wouldnt believe how much time it can save you. you can add skinability to your site just like that by dynamicly generating the css link. CSS is the futer, bet jump on the bandwagon.CSS is hard to learn? Really? I don't think so... it's only as complicated as you want it to be. If you want to have a grasp of how the browser interprets CSS then learning the box model etc. might be a good idea, but you don't have to to be a good CSS author.

PS: I'd edit that typo just before 'potential', it looks like something completely different at the moment ;)

[justame]

Originally posted by me'
CSS is hard to learn? Really? I don't think so... it's only as complicated as you want it to be. If you want to have a grasp of how the browser interprets CSS then learning the box model etc.


/me just a whispers® to me'...
/me just a thinks® its 'detailed' to learn...lol...ummm sorrrta like wayyy back whennn??? /me does just a remember® howww 'hard' tables n' theirrr just a ssorted® structure was...aka the ol' order...table/tr/td/closetd/closetr/closetable...yet diddd take the time to notice thattt heyyy ifin' ya just a change® thessse two numbers??? you can make your 'reply' loook like its sittin in the middle of just a brick® rotflmao!!! n' siggghs @ learning html coding in notepad™ n' continues to do sooo til this site...lol...
n' /me reminds ya shes stilll not programmed to think...:O)))

/me does find though to learn errr grasp the concept??? ya haveee to start with the basics n' make templates® as you go...n' thennn just a fter® recoding different sites usin' 'em??? youll sooon grasp the 'heyyy if /me changes thisss number??? thattt changes the look entirely...:O)))