When do you choose liquid CSS layouts over fixed? What for?

Question

I was wondering what you think about css coding, when / why coding fixed or liquid stylesheets?

I agree that fixed-size style sheets are easier / faster to code because the fluid takes longer to make all the elements adapt well to their parents.

So, when did you choose fixed liquid (or vice versa)? What for?

Answer 1

Update 2 I believe that now it is best to create a website with flexible and adaptive capabilities for any screen size. Liquid CSS may have flaws that you would think, such as long lines of text (instead, the block of the text position is set on the fly) - examples of responsive design - browser-side code where pages adapt to any screen:

• http://surrey.ac.uk/
• http://bostonglobe.com/
• http://thoughtfulweb.co.uk/

Responsive design: the server on which the site is hosted determines the type of browser that requests the page and serves the appropriate page layouts, for example. mobile. This leads to errors in the fact that user agent identifiers are not always accurate - for example, many browsers include the mozilla line in their id, for example, therefore it is not always possible to rely on this data.

Previous answer

Liquid layouts (layouts that are horizontally compressed or stretched to fit the horizontal width of the window)

• Benefits: reformatting the content on the fly for full use Window width. This means that the dilemma of choosing the most popular fixed width, for example. 940px, 960px or 978px is not required. This one is especially useful for handheld small screen devices that vary a bit. You should do less work when considering all possible screen sizes.

• Disadvantages: due to the fact that the site will contract or stretch to the horizontal, you cannot control the layout as much as a fixed width. Aesthetics and how good the site looks will have less control. You may find that my question of doing less work to support the entire width of the screen is, after all, wrong, because here you are looking at scenarios where the screen is really small and the menu navigation is all grouped and ugly or too far apart friend big screen

Fixed layouts (layouts that are fixed and do not change according to the available horizontal width).

• Advantages: Once you have set the most popular width, for example. 940px, 960px, etc. You will not need to test a site with different screen widths. The layout is neat, and things do not move, aesthetics, how beautiful things look.

• Disadvantages. Some users with small screens handheld computers may need to scroll horizontally to view your site if your fixed width is larger. If you also do not support the mobile version, so that these users can use

Look at the large sites - what they use. It seems to me that fixed widths are more popular, including stackoverflow.com

However, look at this fluid site: http://derekallard.com/

Here, the developer uses fluid layouts to advantage, using graphics layers that slide over each other as the width of the site adjusts in your window.

update: there is no wrong or correct answer. Both have virtues. People from the media who came from television, cinema, and newspapers to the Internet may be inclined toward wider fixation because of their familiarity with those media that have this.

Answer 2

This is not a matter of technology, it is a matter of decision making. You choose a liquid if you (or a client) WANT a liquid.

I DO NOT WANT a liquid myself. What for? With a very wide window, you get very short text strings that are hard to read.

Well, there are some other parts that you should consider. Is your page accessible? Then you need to make a liquid layout view for those that enlarge the page.

You can also find responsive web design. One that works in mobile browsers too.
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/

Answer 3

If you leave the choice, I rarely use liquid layout in everything except business-style web applications.

those. for applications where the client insists on a lot of horizontal information, for example. tables, I will go with a liquid layout for obvious reasons. For more standard websites, I will stick with a fixed, if at all possible.

When I turn to the liquid for the latter, I basically still apply the maximum width of the copy text, because I'm not particularly politically correct, and making the site enjoyable for 99% of visitors is more important to me than doing (relative) use the breeze for a few - while I keep it affordable and modest for those few. According to Yuntsen, the length of the text for the text is very important for both design and readability. Do not let these lines stretch to infinity ...

Basically, my sites with a fixed layout will have different ways of placing a smaller screen size, and not just simply stretching the liquid - moving side bars and such under the text and, possibly, setting the width of the text to copy to the device’s viewing window. Sometimes, but not always, what are css media requests for.

(see, for example, http://www.quirksmode.org/mobile/viewports2.html )

Answer 4

Fixed layouts are usually easier to design and develop, and visitors also use this type of layout.

Fluid layouts require more planning and are also not suitable for all types of web applications. I do not often use the fluid approach.