By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,447 Members | 1,172 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,447 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Page sizing question

P: n/a
Prior to using style sheets, I used tables to lay out my pages. I
always used percentages when specifying widths so that the page would
fit nicely in the browsers regardless of the size of the window.

Now that I have started to use style sheets for layout purposes, I am
faced with some odd results when I try to create pages that are
resizable. I end up with boxes that jump down underneath other
elements if the window is resized too small.

Because of this, I have begun, reluctantly, to use fixed widths and
heights for my pages. The page sizes will remain static regardless of
the window size, but I am guaranteed that everything will stay put
where I want it.

I have found large sites that use both types. espn.com uses fixed
width pages. google.com uses dynamic pages.

I am curious what the concensus is on fixed width vs dynamic width
pages. Is one preferred over the other?

Any opinions or preferences?

Also, does anyone have any tips for using dynamic width pages while
preventing boxes from wrapping if the window is too small?

Thanks,
John S.
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
1 Reply


P: n/a
jo*********@jstorta.com (J.Storta) wrote:
Prior to using style sheets, I used tables to lay out my pages. I
always used percentages when specifying widths so that the page would
fit nicely in the browsers regardless of the size of the window.

Now that I have started to use style sheets for layout purposes, I am
faced with some odd results when I try to create pages that are
resizable. I end up with boxes that jump down underneath other
elements if the window is resized too small.
What's odd about that? It's one of the advantages of CSS over tables.
Because of this, I have begun, reluctantly, to use fixed widths and
heights for my pages. The page sizes will remain static regardless of
the window size, but I am guaranteed that everything will stay put
where I want it.
Why is it important that they stay in the same position? Presumably
there's no relationship between the content on the left and the
content on the right (if there was then a table would be the best
choice) they are merely to be presented one after the other. And one
after the other can be either right after left OR bottom after top
(assuming a LTR TTB language).
I am curious what the concensus is on fixed width vs dynamic width
pages. Is one preferred over the other?
Dynamic is better unless your content itself is inherently fixed
width.
Also, does anyone have any tips for using dynamic width pages while
preventing boxes from wrapping if the window is too small?


How small is too small? Depends on how many columns you have and what
they contain. If they only contain text then the minimum width of the
window is obviously the sum of the lengths of the longest words in
each column. If they contain images or other fixed size elements then
the minimum width is the sum of those elements.

Using positioning rather than floating will stop the wrapping but will
IMO make the layout more prone to strange effects.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #2

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.