Jump to content

Web Design Discussion


Recommended Posts

I been thinking of new site layouts as I plan to make yet another website. However unlike DEXTUT.COM I am planing to go into more graphics then all code. So with my old sites they would fit to your screen. However with heavly graphic sites with uneven images, this could be a problem and you may need to set a size for that site to be viewed in. I am sure we all seen websites that were centered with black boaders on both sides. My question is, how big should a site be in width.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I been thinking of new site layouts as I plan to make yet another website. However unlike DEXTUT.COM I am planing to go into more graphics then all code. So with my old sites they would fit to your screen. However with heavly graphic sites with uneven images, this could be a problem and you may need to set a size for that site to be viewed in. I am sure we all seen websites that were centered with black boaders on both sides. My question is, how big should a site be in width.

It really depends on what audience you're targeting.

If your audience is tech savvy, you can even go for 1000+, because they'll probably use 19"+ screens.

If your audience is in the middle, like high school people, 900 will be ideal, due to small laptops, and wrong resolution screens.

If you're making a website for knitting fans (70+), fire up Lynx or Netscape and prepare it for 640x480 :P

Best thing to do is of course base it on audience, but if you have a real general audience, try optimizing it for high resolutions, but collapse menu's when confronted with resolutions <=1024x768.

In reality <800x600 isn't a viable thing to aim for, as it seriously maims your graphic solutions, and there's only 3 or 4 people using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I been thinking of new site layouts as I plan to make yet another website. However unlike DEXTUT.COM I am planing to go into more graphics then all code. So with my old sites they would fit to your screen. However with heavly graphic sites with uneven images, this could be a problem and you may need to set a size for that site to be viewed in. I am sure we all seen websites that were centered with black boaders on both sides. My question is, how big should a site be in width.

You also can just design some elements using the full width, for example the content section and design a pixel-exact menu section at the side. So you can combine the design advantages of pixel-exact design with the usability-advantages of screen-fitting websites.

If you really can't avoid it, I would use 1000px because you never know, if something will make the user's 1024x768 screen a bit smaller (e.g. a task list on the side of the screen).

Thanx for the tips on MS filter:alpha attribute... I already forgot about it^^. Is there a way to make the background of a div transparent and the text it contains solid without the use of absolute positioning and multiple boxes, which do not contain each other? I could do this stuff but that would be some hard work because my website isn't pixel-exact but screen-fitting :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm...sorry, but the only way I know would be to use 2 divs: One with the transparency that has z-index: 0; and another text div above it with the same dimensions but no background. The latter would be set to z-index: 1;.

EDIT: Look at THIS!

EDIT2: :Warning::Warning::Warning:NO, Look at THIS! :Warning::Warning::Warning:

Surprisingly, I didn't break any rules in the above post!

tagflowsig.png

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

I am a disco dancer. +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*bookmarked* :mrgreen:

thank you very much

I'll let you know, when my website will have the new design. For now, you could comment on the current metal style, if you wanted to ;)

:Link: http://enormator.110mb.com

If you don't speak German, you could want to view the translated version (by google translator, so don't expect too much sense)

:Link: English version

notice, that the site will show rust after 5 Minutes being there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Hey, what about a real discussion?

Most websites have a fixed width in Pixel (like 1024px or so). I always design my websites so, that they can fully expand to the width of the user's screen and if that isn't enough, it'll grow downwards. But some websites are even fixed in width and height and scroll the content in a frame. Artists say, it helps the designer make the page look exactly as he/she intended to.

I think it's part of the webdesigners' job to make the website look cool on every screen und fully use the given space because this is also art, even a more difficult one.

What do you think about static website dimensions? And why do you think so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enormator: Fluid pages are a pain in the back. While height mostly doesn't matter, the width can and WILL cause problems with your design. For example, you divided the page into a manu on the left, and content on the right. Normally the space inbetween would be enough to clearly separate them, or yet at the same time have a nice text-density. However, if the page were to become "fluid", and you'd view it on a wide screen, the menu would either need to be stretched, or the text would consist of 2 or three lines. Neither of te options is appropiate. You need to use tiling textures, and have even more issues with the text.

A website can look cool on every screen, however, they appear in all different sizes, and this is not a minor issue, like watching out for people who use (For example) Mozilla 0.3 on a *nix rig. Just because your website spreads all over the screen doesn't make it good. It sometimes even makes it harder to focus on the actual content. If there is any at all. For example, your own site starts off with a couple of HUGE textures, goes into a "main" page, but there appears no content whatsoever. Just 2 different logo's, and a menu. The rest is space. It is not being used by anything apart from the textures that took me 5 seconds extra to load. It contributes in no way to my browsing experience. I do not see why I would want my whole screen with it.

If you see a liquid site that uses its variable size well, please do post. If not, just remain assured that absolute numbers will give actual positions, and not "somwhere over there", which not only makes it easier to code, but also to use, as the layout can be uniform troughout machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I despise most all variable-width pages. I can't concentrate on reading a line of text longer than about 600px - I lose my place going from one line to the next because I'm too far away from the anchor, the left side. I much prefer fixed-width, as long as it's wide enough - a 700px wide site on a 1600px wide monitor just looks ridiculous (note that my screen doesn't have a 1600px wide resolution, but I've seen sites on some that do). Even on my 1280px wide monitor, I can't stand to read this forum in its full-width state, so I use Firefox's user stylesheets feature to force it to be 900px wide.

There are very few sites I've seen that get variable-width right, but the one I always point to is HTMLDog.com. They get around the usual problems by having 3 or 4 columns to eat up the width.

Another site that does it well is SourceForge.net. It's quite obvious why they use a full-width layout - they have so much information to convey, with columns of categories and grids of data everywhere, they need all the space they can get.

I think that really should be the determining factor on whether or not you use a full-width design - how much information do you have? Would it look too stretched out and sparse at wide resolutions, or is the site so dripping with content that you can't possibly squeeze it into a 980px wide design?

As far as fixing both the width and height - that just strikes me as lazy. A good web design will take into consideration the limitations and necessities of the medium, and should be able to grow to fit whatever it put in it - usually downward, as horizontal scroll bars are annoying.

I am not a mechanism, I am part of the resistance;

I am an organism, an animal, a creature, I am a beast.

~ Becoming the Archetype

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So we could summarize, that it is very difficult to make a fluid page good-looking. Okay. But I don't think they are a "pain from the past". I am just redoing my website. It will still take some time but it will be good when it will be ready. We'll see then.

I can't concentrate on reading a line of text longer than about 600px

Wouldn't this probably work with bigger font-size? If a web designer uses the unit "em" to specify font-sizes and you have a big screen and therefor a high setting for the standart font-size, it can be readable. And only because a page is fluid, it doesn't mean, that the text has to be spread all over the screen. For example if you make a 2 column layout, you have even on a 2048px wide screen only 1024px Text, which is what conventional websites also have (but it's their only column then). And it doesn't hurt to have 2 columns on a 1024px screen because there is still enough space for 2 columns.

Examples... what about this page? (No, this is not a link because I mean the forum itself)

And finally about the criticism of my website I have to say the following: My website isn't perfect. I'm working but I don't have much time atm. I've just made a new index page but of course there is still a lot of work to do until the next major release. The new version will also be fluid and by now it looks really good. It uses big symbols in a Mac-like dock/bar with hovering zooming them in to use space even better. If I feel like it, I'll post a preview version. By the way: I have a background image for screen widths up to 2048px and it takes less than 50kB and it is a progressive image and of course there won't be anything blocking you from using the website while it is not fully loaded in the new version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we could summarize, that it is very difficult to make a fluid page good-looking. Okay. But I don't think they are a "pain from the past". I am just redoing my website. It will still take some time but it will be good when it will be ready. We'll see then.
I can't concentrate on reading a line of text longer than about 600px

Wouldn't this probably work with bigger font-size? If a web designer uses the unit "em" to specify font-sizes and you have a big screen and therefor a high setting for the standart font-size, it can be readable. And only because a page is fluid, it doesn't mean, that the text has to be spread all over the screen. For example if you make a 2 column layout, you have even on a 2048px wide screen only 1024px Text, which is what conventional websites also have (but it's their only column then). And it doesn't hurt to have 2 columns on a 1024px screen because there is still enough space for 2 columns.

I specialise in accessible web design, which is a hell of a lot more complicated than making sure images have an 'alt' attribute etc. if you really get into it. I know this discussion isn't about web accessibility, but the reason I brought it up was because there has been some research into the most suitable line length because it's particularly of relevance to people with visual impairments and in particular those who use screen magnifiers. It's hard work often for people with normal eyesight to follow very long lines, but for people using magnifiers, keeping track of where you are on a web page can be a nightmare if you're faced with a 'wall' of text.

I can't remember offhand what the recommended maximum line-length is, but you can use the "min-width" and "max-width" attributes in your CSS to limit the width of block elements of a web page, if necessary nesting a div inside a column div to limit the width of text etc. Apart from using a fully fluid design, you can also use a hybrid approach where say the width of a particular column is fixed, but that of any other column(s) is fluid to fill the whole page. Sizing your block level elements in % can also be helpful, as that way, your columns are going to stay in proportion no matter what the size of the screen. Finding something that works at all widths though's always going to be a challenge. A fluid design though's going to be more "future proof" if designed carefully and also has the advantage of interoperability so it can be viewed on a range of devices, including small screen devices such as PDAs and mobile phones (though of course you could use alternate stylesheets to accommodate them.

The only time I'd specifically fix a width would be on a site such as the last one I recently finished. The photo my client supplied me with for the header image obviously had a fixed width, so for the content area of the page I was limited to a width of around 750px. On most screen widths in common usage today the site looks fine, as the background 'behind' the content part of the page is a similar colour to the page area with a slight pattern. The only screen size it could potentially cause an issue for is someone with their monitor set at a 800x600px resolution (and yes, there are still people out there using such resolutions, whether that's for reasons of preference, or accessibility, and people who browse with sidebars and such like visible also).

Anyone know some good free hosts?

IMHO, never go for a free host unless it's for a small personal site where you're not bothered about the amount of uptime, standard and availability of support, features, and the amount of space you have available. With free hosts you're unlikely to be able to set up sub-domains, your storage space is most likely going to be extremely limited, and you're simply not going to get priority for support should anything go wrong, or any guarantees on uptime, and most likely your site's going to be displaying ads, which instantly scream at any visitor, "Hey, the owner of this site's too tight to get a decent paid host!" :lol:

Hosts cramming far too many accounts onto shared servers is always going to be a problem, so if suddenly either your site or another on the same server gets voted "Da best Website Evah!" or whatever and your page hits go through the roof, as does your bandwidth usage, how are your free hosts gonna keep their "promise" of their wonderful claims about their uptime? Have you read the small print to check what happens or what you get charged if you go over your bandwidth limit? Like they say, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and somehow they've got to make their money and cover their costs for keeping those servers running and paying their bills. There's always a catch somewhere.

I've just had a quick look at the 110mb site host recommended a few posts back, and at a first glance, it looks good. It's got features to rival the paid hosts I use for all my sites, and recommend to all my clients. Dig a bit deeper though....

Now call me cynical if you like, but a quick look at the FAQs though instantly got me worried, and if I was considering hosting with them I'm afraid I'd be running out the door as fast as my legs would carry me if I was looking for a host where I needed that site to be available 24/7, 365 days a year...

Can I rate your site publicly?

Remember -- 110mb is giving you a favor and working our &lt; no swearing &gt; off 24/7 to provide you a fast & reliable hosting place with NO ads. We really don't get anything in return from you.

So the least you can do is give us a good rating.

And just like you're motivated to do better when someone positively endorses you, we are too motivated to provide you an even BETTER service when we get a positive review.

Please rate us and leave your review at: http://www.free-webhosts.com/reviews/110mb.php

And most importantly: If you're unsatisfied (like something is limited that's frustrating you, or a feature isn't there), simply request it in the forum "Features You Want Added To 110Mb...", and it'll surely be added.

So because they're offering you the moon on a stick, you gotta be nice about them? Even if you get really lousy service? And what are they gonna do if you don't say nice things about in public? Most likely terminate your account, probably without any warning, so you find yourself with a website that's down and looking for another host.

Even better is the line "If you're unsatisfied (like something is limited that's frustrating you, or a feature isn't there), simply request it in the forum "Features You Want Added To 110Mb...", and it'll surely be added". :lol: Hmmm...okay....so I'd like 100GB disk space please, I'd like to be able to run VB Script and Coldfusion on my site, I want to be able to have unlimited domains on my account, and I want to be able to add subdomains to my site. I think I know what the answer's gonna be!

Second...

I haven't received a response to my support ticket(s) in days!

If you haven't received a reply or response to your ticket(s) from support within 72 hours or more, then obviously that's because (1) staff has tons of tickets to answer, since we get hundreds a day, and (2) our entire team is busy on server maintenance or a major bug.

Yep, it's that old problem of just not getting priority support, or often a reasonable standard of support, when you use a free host. Even if you pay their exorbitant fees for upgrades, you're not going to get support any faster. So your website goes down, and meanwhile (while you're waiting for support to get back to you) your site's not available. Visitors, finding what looks like a dead site, are unlikely to come back, and if you're a business site it's even worse because you've just lost a potential customer. With my paid hosts, the longest I've ever waited for a response to a support ticket, even if it didn't fully resolve my problem on the first attempt, is one hour. The last time I put a ticket in, I got a response in 3 minutes, and it's not a huge hosting company I use, or a very expensive one. Which leads me on to their upgrade prices...

So, for the free account, you basically get something that'll run HTML and limited elements of PHP. You can't put a forum or a blog, or any script that requires a database back-end on there, because the free account doesn't support MySQL. So, for free, you get a bit of storage space and the ability to put a few pictures etc. on your pages and some straightforward PHP scripts so long as they don't require any modules they've disabled. Try to organise more than a few dozen photos etc. on your new site though just using HTML, and you're getting into the territory where for ease of updating and maintenance you're going to be looking at wanting some sort of gallery script, and there are very few that don't require a database back-end, and that's when you're starting to need looking at paying for upgrades. That "free" account's not looking quite so free any more if you want to do something useful with your site.

Most of those "features" they're selling as upgrades are features/modules that are built into the operating system the server runs on, presuming they're running on a *Nix server, (and it's only a small "tweak" to activate them) which is of course open-source, free software. All the "upgrades" they're offering are features that are standard with just about every paid hosting package. One review I found for them online back in October 2007 said they were charging $1.50 to enable PHP Register_Globals, which is just a joke!

Now apparently with 110mb.com those upgrade prices are for features which are "one time payments to get them activated forever." Forever? That's a long time! Is that your lifetime or theirs? A free host offering all that paid hosting packages offer, all for free? In the current economic climate where major retailers are going to the wall left, right, and centre, how long are they going to be around for?

If you have a small, "simple" site that's a personal site and uptime and getting support quickly aren't important to you, fair enough, go for it, but I've had my fingers burnt too many times in the past with hosts who promise the earth or offer "too good to be true" promises (and like they say, if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is) to be taken in by those sort of things.

Finally, I did a quick google on 110mb.com, and a fair few reviews are saying yes, on value they're excellent, but poorly rated for reliability (uptime), speed, and support. There's a fair few positive reviews as well from people who obviously think they're the best thing since sliced bread, but amongst all those even are some worrying stories of downtime lasting days, lack of support, etc., and for anything other than a personal site I'd be extremely wary of using them, or any free hosting without an uptime guarantee/refund policy if you're not happy with the service.

Just my 2c worth. :wink:

bliss_sig_pencil_2.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Can someone help me? I want to make a personal web site to make it look like this:

http://us.fotolia.com/id/10599147

I only know html and css. I want to have the container right in the middle and then navigation buttons on the top.

sig-1.png
Don't spit into the well, you might drink from it later. -----Yiddish Proverb

Glossy Galaxy Ball---How to Make Foliage
My Gallery

PDN Fans--My DA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...