Forum Moderators: open
If you read that study, and then go to the next page, you'll find a study on fluid vs static and centered static table layouts [psychology.wichita.edu].
significant subjective differences were found that favored the Fluid layout. Here, participants indicated they perceived this layout as being the best suited for reading and finding information, as well as having a layout that is most appropriate for the screen size (for both small and large screens). They also indicated that the Fluid layout looked the most professional, and consequently preferred it to the other layout conditions. Conversely, the Left-justified layout was consistently the least preferred condition.
Most of the sites I work with, however, are not 3-column. I wonder if the differences in perception would be as dramatic when it's just right or left side navigation plus a body/content area.
The "extremes" are being pushed in both directions. It was not very long ago where all you had to be concerned with were 14, 15 and "huge" 17inch monitors. 640x480 resolution was still a force to be dealt with while 800x600 and upstart 1024x768 resolution was something only a few even knew existed.
I have been using a 21 inch monitor set at 1600x1200 resolution for so long now that I almost take it for granted - almost though not quite. I know this is far from the common monitor/resolution settings.
Which brings up a point: as I ocasionally peruse the local computer/software retailers I cannot help but notice that the prices of pc monitors continues to drop. Flat screen, Liquid Crystal and larger displays are all becoming more affordable.
Though the PC market (MACs too) has been unstable for the last year, I expect to see a resurgence before too long. With this (predicted) resurgence, you can expect to see larger displays as part of the standard pc package. Which now brings up a point Tedster made way back in the "liquid 3-column" thread.
Max-width & CSS! While a liquid display is certainly (and justifiably) favored, it loses most of its appeal when - s-t-r-e-t-c-e-d a-c-r-o-s-s a t-w-e-n-t-y o-n-e i-n-c-h m-o-n-i-t-o-r, - more so when using a 1600x1200 resolution. Granted, this is NOT a common set-up, BUT, I have been watching the screen resolution stats at thecounter.com - little by little larger resolutions are gaining ground. There is no danger of 800x600 being supplanted anytime soon. That will continue to be the most common resolution for sometime yet. But as more and more end-users DO begin to migrate to larger displays and resolutions, websites using liquid layouts will begin to lose some of their appeal unless the CSS max-width attribute can keep pages from stretching into "un-useability."
This may be a tad early to be concerned at this point, but one of the things most of us here pride ourselves on is our inherent "what if" nature that has us continually speculating about the future and looking for solutions BEFORE things get out of hand.
As greater CSS implementation is adopted by browser manufacturers, solutions to the above will become available, max-width, for instance.
What are some of your thoughts on this (O Brother! Where Art Thou? - can o' worms! Eh?);)
As far as big screen sizes go at the moment, I would assume that people with large resolutions would resize their browser windows so sites don't stretch to oblivion, wouldn't they?
we're having to work to an ever wider range of display possibilities...my design priority for this year is looking at how to make divs slide into place in the right order as page width decreases whilst letting them take up plenty of space when there is lots of screen estate
[w3.org...]
