openmind — Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:09:53 +0000

My site has alwys in the past been fixed. The redesign that was heavily dicussed here is expandable.

The reasn I felt it needed the cahnge is that when I got my new monitor, I realised how poor the site looked at larger res. I always used to see it at a max of 800 x 600. But like the above, it really does depend on the site.

Jack Michaelson — Sun, 13 Oct 2002 11:13:28 +0000

Depends on the situation but I'd say fixed.

nuk3 — Sun, 13 Oct 2002 00:58:07 +0000

But it would still look bad on earlier broswer versions..

Megan — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 13:10:11 +0000

That's why the max-width property is a wonderful thing I'm really going to have to start using that (and wouldn't it be nice if IE supported it ?!?)

Mark Hensler — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 07:16:37 +0000

Most sites don't look good stretched. My current res is 1280, but I kick it up to 1600 at times. I can still read 10/12px fonts, but not when they stretch accross my screen. I can't follow the line of text that far. So, even at high resolutions, I always size my browser to about 1024.

The Webmistress — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 07:02:23 +0000

I suppose a lot of it is down to personal tastes. I have a 19" screen running at 1152*864 and at full screen I really think it looks daft a lot of the time when sites stretch to fit making long lines of text, especially if the were designed to wrap around pictures or sit in specific places and then the navigation or sides are longer than the middles!

jkd — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 02:18:51 +0000

Expandable layouts are the only way to really ensure accessibility.

People on huge monitors with huge resolutions can't read small text, while people on small monitors in small resolutions may be presented with something too large to easily read.

The solution? Use CSS's relative units for everything, save a few exceptions (such as border-width for example.

disaster-master — Tue, 08 Oct 2002 22:50:19 +0000

Expandable if possible.

dragonsjaw — Tue, 08 Oct 2002 22:19:25 +0000

Like everyone else says,
it really depends on the function/type of site.
My latest is expandable/CSS positioned,
and i do like stretchy sites that work.
Fixed is great for somethings, but I run at 1024x768 which
isn't that big these days, and often half my screen is empty
with little fixed width sites.

dragonsjaw

Megan — Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:26:00 +0000

It depends, big time. For information heavy sites (like gymn.ca) I tend to use a flex-width layout. For sites that are more of a display or less content heavy (like the Belfry Cottage site I did recently) I tend to go with fixed. It always depends on the design I come up with as well - latey I've been doing more complex layouts that wouldn't work as well flexed.