Fixed vs Fluid Styles

[imported_infitech]

I did a search for similar threads here and I couldn't find one really going really in-depth about opinions on fixed vs. fluid styles.

I started a discussion about this on my website; Here's a quote from that conversation located @ New York Dev Forums: Fixed vs. Fluid (http://www.ny-dev.com/forums/f61/style-do-you-prefer-1109/)
I think the reason most

VBulletin sites use fixed is to have more control over their design.

With the direction current web trends are going these days I think a good majority of the websites out there in the future are going to be designed fixed width for

1024*768 if not 1280*1024. With new hardware and operating systems, monitors and what not, i think a good number of the PCs out there are using 1024*768

resolutions and higher. There is also the factor of line lengths when using a wider screen resolution. I think most who use larger resolutions prefer fixed as it makes

everything a lot more comfortable to read.

There are also other methods that designers can use to sort of mix and blend such as a mixed fluid with max-width element for internet explorer 5 and above

browsers, but unfortunately we are using the VBulletin script which works its own way.

But this is an old debate that I think ultimately will end as hardware continues to evolve.

This threads prompts me to start a fixed width vs. fluid thread.What does the VBulletin community think about this?

I've always preferred fixed styles for one reason or another, but probably the main reason is because i just believe they plain out look better.

[Smoothie]

I think it's nonsense. No one is gonna shove this idea down my wind pipe that fixed width is the wave of the future. Fluid for me.

[Shelley_c]

Basically, it's down to the style your designing. Some styles will look good fluid but look better fixed and vice versa. Saying Fixed vs fluid just doesn't cut it without knowing what the layout/design will look like and whether that design will look better as a fluid or fixed style.

In short, I find the design and structure of the style will determine which looks better. :)

[gunitman247]

Basically, it's down to the style your designing. Some styles will look good fluid but look better fixed and vice versa. Saying Fixed vs fluid just doesn't cut it without knowing what the layout/design will look like and whether that design will look better as a fluid or fixed style.

In short, I find the design and structure of the style will determine which looks better. :)
couldnt have said it better.

[wtricks]

Most of my layouts are so graphically loaded that I cannot do them on a fluid design. With few exceptions all my sites are on fixed width

[Princeton]

My preference is a fixed-width layout.
content is easier to read
it's easier to scan page (looking for something specific quickly)
the site will always look the same
layout size is similar to everyday magazines, business papers, letters, etc (8*10)
more control over design (eye candy)With that said, a liquid layout is not wrong .. it just has to be handled differently.
On a photo(s) site, a liquid layout would work better. eg. showcase photos, etc

Other things you have to consider when designing an interface...
server resources (memory, bandwidth, http requests) - an increase in server resources regardless of type will have a negative affect on user experience
site's popularity (growth) - interface should be ready for growth
dial-up members

[HotHuskers.com]

I think I have to agree that the information in fixed can be more uniformly displayed in a content specific manner. I think the question is whether or not that is desired?

[Kirk Y]

I like a happy medium between the two, something like 85% width.

[Princeton]

Everyone's goal is to get the visitor to read the content .. if not read there's no reason for the visitor to come back.

Content needs to be readable - formatting is essential ... the only reason someone would come back (revisit) is because there's something available that they want/need ... the only way to do this is to make the content easy to scan; easy to read; easy to find.

[Shazz]

Everyone's goal is to get the visitor to read the content .. if not read there's no reason for the visitor to come back.

Content needs to be readable - formatting is essential ... the only reason someone would come back (revisit) is because there's something available that they want/need ... the only way to do this is to make the content easy to scan; easy to read; easy to find.

That must be wht vb.org is fixed :cool:

[Kirk Y]

You can choose between either Fixed or Fluid. ;)

[Quillz]

Generally, I prefer fixed styles, but recently, I've been designing some basic pages to be a fluid width of 80%, and I've liked how the pages have turned out.

[CyberAlien]

From my experience with forums, I'd say most people that use fixed width use it only to have some fancy logo they have designed that cannot be expanded. Some designers make only fixed width designs (including very good looking ones) only because they can't write valid html for fluid design as fixed width is much easier to code; such designs usually have invalid html that looks awful in non-IE browsers.

I disagree that fixed width designs have better readability - it all depends on how layout is designed, not on width. If design has parts that are just design elements that attracts user attention (such as flashing images, images with very high contrast to background, etc...) and that aren't part of content then readability will be bad no matter what width is used. And if page is designed to have content in easily readable format, such as postbit_legacy where posts are on one side and useless content (user profiles) is on other side, and there aren't any distracting elements, then page would be easy to read regardless of page width.

[MRGTB]

Well I'd have to say I prefer fix width style because you can control how the site looks exactly in other peoples browsers easier than a fluid style. The only thing you have to keep in mind is the fact some people may be using a low res on old PC's, such as 800X600 screen res if you intend for everybody to view your site OK. So there can b a down-side if your fixed width goes beyond 800 pixels wide.

But you can do so much more with a fixed width when it comes to skinning and get away with it, compared to skinning a fluid style. I just like a fixed width style anyway over a full width fluid style, just a matter of personal choice.

[Greek76]

Personally I like fluid and only use fluid.

[HPIA]

The one problem is how I always get this problem with fixed skins. Some posts go out of the limit I set. Even vb.org has the problem sometimes (see attatchment). Is there anyways to fix this?

[Smoothie]

Face it, anyone with half a brain will tell you fixed widths look like crap on larger monitors. The days of 600x800 are gone. And I gotta love web designers who make a fixed layout bigger than 1024x768. :rolleyes:

[HPIA]

lol I got a 19 inch.

[aggiefan]

i do fixed width personally... its easier to give a uniform experince for all users (and we have an auto image resizer and the only way we can make it max out at a width is to set a width for the page and match it with our image resizer)

[imported_infitech]

I added a poll to this thread

[The Librarian]

Fluid. This site is fixed and it looks TERRIBLE on my wide screen monitor (laptop). It also irritates me to have to scroll down to see stuff when it would all fit on my screen if it were fluid.

What a waste of space There's a good four inches of space that isn't being used.

[TheFrienzNet]

Basically, it's down to the style your designing. Some styles will look good fluid but look better fixed and vice versa. Saying Fixed vs fluid just doesn't cut it without knowing what the layout/design will look like and whether that design will look better as a fluid or fixed style.

In short, I find the design and structure of the style will determine which looks better. :)

Nicely said.

[Adrian Schneider]

I like fluid designs better, BUT I do NOT want the main content of the site to be that entire width. If you have a large deisgn, keep the content to about 60% of the page, and leave the rest to sidebars / extra-info. If it is too big it is difficult to read comfortably.

Personally I like fluid (90%) width 2 sidebars, and fixed (760px) with one sidebar.

[CyberAlien]

Fluid. This site is fixed and it looks TERRIBLE on my wide screen monitor (laptop).
You can change it in User CP options.

[The Librarian]

You can change it in User CP options.


Oh, that's MUCH better! Thanks. I hadn't thought to check the UserCP.

[Vindictive]

My forum is set to a fixed width of 760, I hate having to look all the way across the screen on my 24 inch.

[edermix]

Fixed!!

[GSeybold]

I'll have to agree. vborg. does look terrible at this fixed width. I'm surpised they use this width and don't give the option of others.



Fluid. This site is fixed and it looks TERRIBLE on my wide screen monitor (laptop). It also irritates me to have to scroll down to see stuff when it would all fit on my screen if it were fluid.

What a waste of space There's a good four inches of space that isn't being used.

[Vindictive]

They do offer fluid width...

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/profile.php?do=editoptions

Default Style Width
If you prefer a liquid (wider) layout, over the fixed-width layout, you can now switch by checking the option below.
760px 950px 80% 90% 95% 100%

[mystikdrmz]

I prefer fixed with myself while my friend prefers fluid lol.

[Netunt]

Depends on the style but usually fixed.

[djxcee]

I prefer fixed over fluid.

[GSeybold]

Thanks so much.. Didn't see this in my ops. Much better at 95%



They do offer fluid width...

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/profile.php?do=editoptions