Now that I've finally ported my blog over to WordPress, well, Blogger had themes, too, but I couldn't find any decent ones. Now I'm having a hard time picking out what I like most, and also getting a chance to customize each theme a little. This is the first real playing with html I've done, most of my background is through ASP.NET html.

Anyway, I'm on Page 26 of the Word Press Themes, and so far all of them are fixed width. They pretty much require full screen at 800x600 with no sidebars or anything. If you don't have a window maximized, you have to scroll. If you have a bigger screen than that, you waste most of it.

Why are these so popular all of a sudden?

It's just the method that most of them have gone through when they created the theme. A lot of the more.. "concerned" authors have taken the time to make sure that the designs are compatible with most resolutions from 800x600 and up.

There are some fluid width themes on the Wordpress Theme site.

I think its just a style right now. Honestly, I like them. It allows for more white space and lets your eye "rest" among a lot of info.
I usually make fixed width sites, but I make them about 765px in width so they will show up in 800X600 resolutions and up. I think alot of people design like that too.

^ Yeah, prior to going with the fluid method, I'd use 775px widths.

It really depends on the site. Personally, I prefer liquid layouts as a general rule just because they're screen-resolution-independent, but I've done okay stuff with fixed width too.

One of the big reasons I can think of for a fixed width is a graphic header that requires it (e.g. the one at www.greenbuildingfest.com). Sometimes those things dictate layouts.

Interesting. Personally, I can't stand them, but at least I've got a better understanding why people go with them. I never really thought about the header graphic, I just assumed people grabbed that as a last step and just pulled whatever fit in there. But it makes sense if you switch the order around.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

It really depends on the site. Personally, I prefer liquid layouts as a general rule just because they're screen-resolution-independent, but I've done okay stuff with fixed width too.

One of the big reasons I can think of for a fixed width is a graphic header that requires it (e.g. the one at www.greenbuildingfest.com). Sometimes those things dictate layouts.

There is nothing more annoying then viewing a website that's fixed to include 800x600 on a 1440x900 resolution. I could only imagine if I had a larger monitor, how much white space would be there

Adam, the one thing about header graphics, is that if they can be tiled, then they're perfect to use for a fluid layout. Otherwise you really have to be specific with your fluid width, with percentages, max-width and then you've got to consider making it compatible for *cough* ie 6 and under.

such a pain the butt.

Riane: that depends. I'm at 1440 x 900 as well, and as long as the layout's centered, it doesn't bother me. If it's left-aligned, yeah, that's a pain in the ***.

As far as header graphics go, they can be tiled if they're a pattern. Again, look at the header graphic (as in the topmost graphic) of the site I just posted. How do you tile that? You can't. It's a solid graphic. I could do the whole pixel stretch routine and spin it out that way, but that would look silly.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

As far as header graphics go, they can be tiled if they're a pattern. Again, look at the header graphic (as in the topmost graphic) of the site I just posted. How do you tile that? You can't. It's a solid graphic.

Silly, that's why I said if a graphic can be tiled (and obviously I don't mean just setting repeat-y; I was referring to literally. Tiles are usually a pattern, thus where tiled came from) then it's perfect for use with a fluid layout

Oh. I missed the word "if". heh

My bad.

1440x900 ?? How many people actually USE that resolution ?? I'd bet very few and I, for one, would probably go blind trying to READ anything at that size ! Sorry, I'm an older person, it's ok for you whipper snappers under 25, but lets be real. I stick to 1280x1024 even on my 19in display. My web stats still tell me that the popular resolution is 1024x768 with a pretty decent percentage still using 800x600. I design most of my sites in fixed widths to work at 8x6 at a minimum.

Another reason for using a fixed width on most of my sites is because they are small sites, and they don't have volumes of content. It would look pretty silly to stretch out a small amount of text across a huge resolution, it would be awful to even try to read anything formatted that way. It's not how people are used to reading, there are no breaks for your eyes.

IE6 and below doesn't support min-width/max-width and I really don't like the way the JS hack to mimic min/max works. In my corporate environment, we are stuck with IE 6 and there's no telling when the corp IT boys will decide it's time to upgrade to IE 7 (which I can't stand anyway).

Personally, I prefer fixed widths, or at least minimally liquid. So, there are many factors for fixed vs. liquid, you just have to decide what's best for you - or your client's - purposes.

Ummm...I'm 30.

It's going to be more prevalent than you might think, LNR. 19" widescreen monitors (which is what Riane and I use) are best set at 1440 x 900, since the aspect ratio is different on a widescreen (16:10, or 8:5 for those of us who know how to do math properly) than it is on a fullscreen (4:3). As soon as other people realize this, they'll switch. Mind you, I still miss the CRT days.

That, and I haven't found any fullscreen monitors with the 2000:1 contrast ratio my widescreen has. Yeah, I'm rockin' the white and black. Everyone else is rockin' the cream and very dark grey. Fear me.

I actually get a lot of visitors using 1400px or wider. I'm currently surfing around 1600x1200, but only because my browser isn't maxed.

One thing no one's mentioned is that it's simply hard to read text that runs across the page. I think that's really one of the the main reasons for fixed width design. I forget the exact number, but I'll say that anything over 35em width becomes hard for the eye to follow. Again I could be completely off on the number, but there is a suggested maximum.

If you want your text to be read don't have too many character running across the page in a single line.

Another thought for fixed width design is if you use contextual advertising. You'd want the ads closer to the content which fixed width allows.

You also get more control over a fixed width design. You have to accept a certain loss of control when designing for the web since there are so many factors outside your influence. using a fixed width gives you back one.

I think you can design for a fixed width without making it feel like there's wasted space on larger monitors. Sure if your site sits along the left edge of the screen there's a lot of empty space to the right which makes the whole thing feel off balance, but if you center the main content and let headers and footers flow from one side to the other there's less of a feeling of wasted space. It becomes more of an open space and still holds an overall balance.

You can use a semi fluid design for your layout so a page expands to say 1600px width, but no further. You can create transitions from the background of your content to the background of the space outside your content. There are a lot of different solutions to the problem.

In the end I've seen good and bad fixed width designs and good and bad fluid designs.

If we're taking a survey, I'm running 1680x1050 on my desktop ( 22" widescreen ) and 1920x1600 ( 17" widescreen ) on my laptop.

Originally Posted by LadynRed

1440x900 ?? How many people actually USE that resolution ?? Sorry, I'm an older person...

Clearly you are not "with the times"

But on a more serious note, you're quite wrong. Have you even what the market has in regards to TFT LCD monitors? Most standard desktop packages include a 17" monitor. Dell sells their 30" and Apple Cinema Displays are at 30".

I can't think of a single designer friend of mine that ISN'T using something smaller than a 19" /widescreen.

Have you even what the market has in regards to TFT LCD monitors? Most standard desktop packages include a 17" monitor. Dell sells their 30" and Apple Cinema Displays are at 30".

Don't patronize me. Do you REALLY think that just because I'm old enough to be your mother that I don't have a clue what's on the market ??? I have been working in IT longer than you've been on this planet and I'm a die-hard Tech Geek. I don't sit in a rockin' chair with my knittin' and know nothing about computers than what I use daily.

I can't think of a single designer friend of mine that ISN'T using something smaller than a 19" /widescreen.

Lucky you. I work for a corporation that keeps a tight budget and I had to kick and scream to get a 2nd monitor at 19" !! We're not a design house with mega budgets.

Adam, I HAVE a 19" monitor, at work and at home. My POINT regarding the screen resolution is that for many older folks, 1440x900 makes things too FREAKIN' SMALL !! Even with my bifocals it's a strain on the eyes. Oh.. the arrogance of the very young.

You simply cannot ignore the demographics - people of the older generations DO use computers, they DO use the web -more every day - and you simply cannot ignore them and design only for a particular age group.

You want me to not patronize you, yet you're able to patronize me? I won't even really divulge more on that, since you can get the picture of what I'm trying to create here.

Actually, your point was 1440x900 ?? How many people actually USE that resolution ?? I'd bet very few and I. Which is exactly what I commented on.

Regardless, it's not hard to read text on here, and I've got horrible vision (near sighted, -5.50) and with contacts/glasses on, the resolution is still large enough that I can read fine with no issues.

Who said that they were designing for a specific demographic here? You're off on a tangent and it doesn't even pertain to what was originally being discussed. All that we brought up was having to deal with fluid layouts on resolutions like 1440x900. Not designing for them.

When it was being discussed about fixed width, did you not see mention that users with 800x600 were being included within this discussion?

Obviously not.

And the arrogance of the very young? Quite frankly it seems ridiculous to harp on about a resolution size when it all comes down to personal preference, as well as one's own personal eyesight. Someone else your age might have no problem viewing on a 1440x900 resolution or larger while someone else that age (you) may whine about how hard it is to see with their poor eyesight.

It's like saying that all people your age and older have the same exact eye sight. Seriously now.

Originally Posted by LadynRed

My POINT regarding the screen resolution is that for many older folks, 1440x900 makes things too FREAKIN' SMALL !!

Turn the font size up...?

That's not a perfect solution, but neither is a microscopic screen. Whenever I have to work on a laptop, at 1024x768, it feels claustrophobic.

More than half of my visitors are using 1280x1024 or greater, or at least that's what Analytics says. I don't know how many use wide screens. But you can get a 20 inch high res LCD for less than $200 from Tiger Direct, and probably from Fry's. Personally, 1024x768 and bad CRTs both bother me so much, if I were stuck with either of those at work, I'd buy and bring in my own monitor for my eyes' sake. Strange as I may be, I'm not alone here. The days when 800x600 dominated are over.

And I don't want to contribute to a fight, but I'm in my 40s, so it's not just the arrogance of the young. Although people getting used to an advance, and starting to take advantage of it probably doesn't fit under "the arrogance of the young." I wonder if dial-up people called YouTube's demand for a fast connection "the arrogance of the young?" To me, it kind of sounds like "the arrogance of the old" if people really expect us to ignore bona fide improvements in technology and only design for the lowest common denominator when we enjoy far better on a day to day basis?

I'd buy and bring in my own monitor for my eyes' sake

Not all companies will allow you to attach computer equipment to their pc's that are NOT purchased by the company. We are forbidden from using even USB portable drives for security reasons. So it's not always an option.

The days when 800x600 dominated are over.

That may be true, but the days of strict corporate control of the desktop is not. Most of our users are NOT allowed to change anything on their machines - no wallpaper, no tweaking display settings, not even color depth. It's a strict, strict policy and it stinks, but that's what we live with. Due to the nature of my job, I am allowed to be an admin on my own machine, but the ONLY thing I can change about my display is the resolution and color depth, the rest is controlled by group network policies. I know how to get around them..hehehe.. but I don't because I'd like to keep my job.

if people really expect us to ignore bona fide improvements in technology and only design for the lowest common denominator when we enjoy far better on a day to day basis?

I dont' think older folks expect that at all, but you should at least design so that people with impairments, physical, hardware, and access, can be accommodated and provide them with a decent user experience. Because of my target audience, I HAVE to build sites to work in 8x6 at a minimum. Not everybody has to do that, depends on the site's visitors. I will still click off of sites that I land on that uses 6 pt type, even though I can increase it myself with FF, it's just simply very annoying and the designers who do that are, invariably, 20 somethings or less ! They don't know.. and they apparently don't care, it's their loss IMHO.

Turning up my text size to use a higher resolution kinda defeats the purpose, no ? Besides, my pc at work can't even DO 1440x900 resolution, it's not on the list and I have a better video card than the usual Dell standard corporate buy garbage. I can go up to 1600x1280, but I'd go blind .

It's like saying that all people your age and older have the same exact eye sight.

Nope. But there are very few people MY age that have perfect vision either. It comes with age and there's no getting around it !

Yes, setting resolutions is a personal choice, however you cannot divorce it from design. I've seen way too many people who design on their higher resolution settings and then seem bewildered when people tell them their site looks awful on a lower resolution. As a designer you HAVE to be AWARE of all possible users - that's part of what accessibility is about - it's not just about the blind.

Originally Posted by LadynRed

Not all companies will allow you to attach computer equipment to their pc's that are NOT purchased by the company. We are forbidden from using even USB portable drives for security reasons. So it's not always an option.

I'm forbidden from attaching any removable storage device to the computer at work, too. No USB hard drives, no iPods, no cell phones that can connect to a computer. But we're allowed to bring in an ergonomic keyboard, a lamp, a different chair, a screen, or anything else that can't be used to compromise data or use trade secrets. I'd bet dollars to donuts you could force them to buy you a different screen for ergonomic reasons, at least in the United States. Of course to save the eyes you wouldn't be buying the type of screens we're talking about, but the point is that even if locking down computers is getting more common (and Vista lets a corporate network do this by default), things like your monitor and mouse are much less strict. You can't steal a customer list with a high resolution display.

Originally Posted by LadynRed

That may be true, but the days of strict corporate control of the desktop is not. Most of our users are NOT allowed to change anything on their machines - no wallpaper, no tweaking display settings, not even color depth. It's a strict, strict policy and it stinks, but that's what we live with. Due to the nature of my job, I am allowed to be an admin on my own machine, but the ONLY thing I can change about my display is the resolution and color depth, the rest is controlled by group network policies. I know how to get around them..hehehe.. but I don't because I'd like to keep my job.

Ya, but they didn't just pull all those policies out of a hat. Someone at that company or a different company one of the bosses used to work at probably set their calendar back a few days whenever they finished a report, or to cheat shareware, or some kind of reason they had to put an end to. Wallpaper, I wouldn't be surprised if a fat guy had a woman in a bikini on his desktop and someone complained, and someone else decided leaving that up to individual taste was a bad idea. Plus, it takes a little extra memory and never gets swapped out. All of that sounds crummy and overbearing, but not random.

Turning up the font size and having more pixels aren't really defeating the purpose. I'm also using cleartype, which smooths out the edges of fonts on the screen, so in the end I've got crisper, better defined text that's a comfortable size to read and more clear from the background. I also have more room on the screen to have more stuff going on.