Comments on: Blog widths

By: twodotfive » Twodotfive first steps

twodotfive » Twodotfive first steps — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:33:42 +0000

[...] And with August came my portuguese blog. And then because of a post on Tlog, I’ve discussed the question of the Blog Widths and the monetization motifs behind using fixed widths. [...]

By: twodotfive

twodotfive — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:12:15 +0000

Blog Widths

By: Ivo Gomes

Ivo Gomes — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:32:42 +0000

Instead of “fixed” or “liquid” layout, you can use “elastic”.
That way, you can define a max-width on the website to keep the lines short. But when you increase the text, that max-width will increase too (em’s) so that the layout stretches with the text, keeping the lines with the same number os words/characters.

Take a look at it here:

http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200504/fixed_or_fluid_width_elastic/

By: Pedro Timóteo

Pedro Timóteo — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:19:33 +0000

From Wikipedia:

Many designers compensate for this by wrapping their entire webpage in a fixed width box, essentially limiting it to an exact pixel-perfect value, which is a fixed layout. Some create the illusion of liquidity by building the graphics for their webpage at a size larger than any current standard monitor size. Other designers say that this is bad because it ignores the preferences of the user, who might have their browser sized a specific way that they like best. These people propose a liquid layout, where the size of the Web page adjusts itself based on the size of the browser window.

There is a usability reason (rather than wanting control) for why a designer may choose a more fixed layout. Studies have shown that there is usually an optimal line width in terms of readability. One rule to appear from such studies is that lines should be between 40-60 characters long, or approximately 11 words per line. But users may choose their windows size and font selection to optimize other factors more important to them.”

So, I was right about what “liquid” means, but, on the other hand, there are indeed studies (like Eric mentioned) which say that people prefer to read short lines… Hmmm…

By: nuruddeen710

nuruddeen710 — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 03:33:27 +0000

thats true…i also have the same problem
propertytips.blogspot.com
theresonlyoneunited.blogspot.com

By: Pedro Timóteo

Pedro Timóteo — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:43:38 +0000

andr3: the 20″ monitor is at work. It’s not mine.

Tim: a full width design does NOT mean I have to scroll sideways. See the examples I gave. Performancing, or my blogs, for instance, use the entire browser width, but that doesn’t mean I have a horizontal scroll bar at 800×600 or something.

Bruno: does “liquid” mean that? I though it meant that the sizes aren’t fixed. Must investigate…

By: dandyna

dandyna — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:08:22 +0000

with tabbed navigation, there’s actually no need to keep several window opened and aligned on screen. So I totally agree with the post’s author. I love wide, spreaded blogs

By: Tim Neale

Tim Neale — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:08:42 +0000

Take a look at some professional sites http://www.guardian.co.uk/ or http://news.bbc.co.uk/. The screen widths designed to fit smaller monitors (lap tops etc). Then they can look ok with larger monitors, but are not annoying users with smaller ones by forcing them to scroll sideways .

Most people with large monitors rarely have the browsers open to full size.

By: andr3

andr3 — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:40:15 +0000

I’m with Eric. Fixed width layouts are easier to accomplish, although it’s not that big of a deal if you use proportional units (em, %) for text size and stuff. The thing is that most bloggers aren’t webdesigners. And like orixilus has mentioned, what good is your 23″ running on 1600×1200 for if you only going to have ONE window maximized? You’re the one spoiling desktop space… the only “sin” the designer has commited was to design using pixels for font sizes, but you can always rely on your browser to increase your text. If you have such a screen you better know how to use it, if not, I’ll be glad to email you my snail mail address so that we can trade. (I have a 17″crt old white bastard, just so you know. works great @ 1024×768)

(Pedro, not aimed at “you” specifically, just trying to target those high-end users with such screens. Fixed width is not always bad. On a personal note, I prefer fixed to pure liquid, which extend proportionally to the width of the screen… you should always have a maximum width.. IE needs a little extra help (js) with that though..

By: Bruno Rodrigues

Bruno Rodrigues — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:48:28 +0000

Using the entire screen allows me to use slightly larger fonts, like I do here…

@pedro: that’s why Eric mentioned “liquid”, which is a kind of page that doesn’t stretch when you maximise the window, but do stretches when you increase the font size. The trick is to use “em” sizes as much as possible.

By: Nicola

Nicola — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:17:15 +0000

I am fairly new to blogging and I thought it was weird - still do - just assumed there was a reason for it. I don’t particularly like it. I guess it could be that there are a lot of people out there like me who are lacking in skills and use free templates of determined size - because it is all we can handle.

By: Pedro Timóteo

Pedro Timóteo — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:18:50 +0000

orixilus: I prefer to use tabs, and multiple desktops (when using Linux), so I have my browser(s) in full screen. I admit that I’m probably not a typical, average user, though.

Eric: thanks for the link. Maybe studies say that short lines are easy to read… I don’t know. Using the entire screen allows me to use slightly larger fonts, like I do here, which, to me, increases readability a lot. BTW: your blog happens to be one of the few full width ones.

Steve: and that would be…?

By: Steve Pavlina

Steve Pavlina — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:39:16 +0000

You’re correct — we know something you don’t.

By: Eric Giguere

Eric Giguere — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:10:40 +0000

Actually, studies have shown that there are optimal line lengths for reading text. There’s a good discussion of it here, along with other tips to increase readability. Now, I’m not saying these blogs are doing it on purpose… to be honest, it’s a lot simpler to create fixed-width layouts that look good in all browsers than to have to deal with the vagaries of CSS and browser bugs to get completely flexible (”liquid”) layouts, especially in 3 columns.

By: orixilus

orixilus — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:10:06 +0000

in my opinion, you *don’t* need 1600×1200 to read a blog and those who have such a screen don’t maximize windows but instead take advantage of the higher resolution to keep several windows open at the same time. this is the reason I would think when developing any kind of website, not just blogs.