Viewing Thread:
"What's the next step up from 760?"

Yep, I'm ready to ditch those 600 by 800 jerks.

So could someone please tell me what width I should be working at now? I guess with the extra room I can finally switch to 3 columns, I'm sure you guys taught me how to do that but I forgot. :(

If only there was some way I could search my old threads in this forum to find the information I need. But as far as I'm aware, no such feature exists.

Well what I prefer doesnt really matter as I'm probably not a typical user. My current resolution is 1440x900, but my browser windows are at 1136x772 (nothing significant about those numbers just what the windows are sized to).
No clue what you're doing but ideally with fluid designs you'd expect the main content column to be somewhat readable at lower resolutions still.

Some good advice Garin, thanks :D

I have one more question about fluid designs. What size should I work at? The 600x800 jerks or the next one up? I remember you saying you're too cheap to buy a second monitor so you have two windows open next to each other, so you prefer 600x800 right? Do others do this too?

Machie wrote:
> Thanks guys :) I did come accross that one first Garin but as you
> mentioned its more code and you always taught me not to use other
> peoples codes unless I fully understand how it works.

Wise words, it was probably somebody else who said them.
I think you have to temper that with some realism though, otherwise you'll be forever learning about css techniques without ever really finishing your website. ;)

> Well I still haven't sorted out the search engine, not that
> important really, but I guess I'll need php to email me 404
> errors if I decide to do that instead of checking my error log.

Its wrong to assume that every 404 to your site will be because of broken links. You could end up receiving quite alot of emails. ;) Logs are really quite sufficient for this sort of thing.

Thanks guys :) I did come accross that one first Garin but as you mentioned its more code and you always taught me not to use other peoples codes unless I fully understand how it works.

I'll give it a try though. I'm just after your standard fixed width columns either side of the main content which can be fluid. I'm trying to imagine what my site would look like on your browser digi. I guess my blog and articles in the center will be much more streteched out and finally I wont have to worry about the navigations when someone increases the text sizes.

I'll let you know how I get on. Right now I'm just quickly doing the error pages. It's 401, 403, 404 and 500 right? Include a link to the site map, don't include the sites navigation, don't use refer to the error codes, be apologetic, trap and automatically email 404 errors to yourself and include a search box.

Well I still haven't sorted out the search engine, not that important really, but I guess I'll need php to email me 404 errors if I decide to do that instead of checking my error log.

I forgot to add at present my new PC looks at browser with a screen resolution of 1280 X 1024 pixels

digi

Well theres lots of ways to do such layouts. As long as it works in the browsers you want it to work in, whats the problem? :)

Having said that, this one may well be better even if it is more css. Of course, its pretty similar to way I've done 3 column layouts in the past, so I would say that. :P

Thanks guys. I'm still trying, just having a headache from looking for a decent 3 column script.

It's a bloody joke if you ask me. They could have made it simple like, float left, middle, right and have it be compatible with all the latest browsers and W3C. But no, now I have too many choices and I get confused and scared when they go on about "it works with this but not that and we have to do this to make that work" and so on. Why isn't it more simple?

I'm looking at this one at the moment,

http://blog.html.it/layoutgala/LayoutGala13.html

div#middle{margin: 0 200px}
div#left {float:left;width:200px;margin-left:-100%}
div#right {float:left;width:200px;margin-left:-200px}

Something about creating the columns in negative margins. Creating two columns of 200px either side of the main content. Then having the left column have a left margin of negative 100%? and the right column a negative 200px left margin? WHT? And finally wrapping it all with float:left;width:100%

Does any of this sound familiar?

I would not worry to much about what it looks like even pros can get it a little wrong - take freeolas site on my pc with a huge resolution it looks fine yet on my laptop its all to the left! big white space on the right.

Digi

Machie wrote:
> Isn't there a standard width for that resolution? Like 760 was
> for 600x800 :)

There was never really a "standard". Only thing you have to worry about is that its less than the width of the browser window edges + scrollbars. So basically pick a number, how about 960?

> I'd love to go without the fixed width but I'd worry it'd look a
> bit stupid on the huge monitors, or do they have their browser
> resolutions set smaller?

Well, I think its fair comment that the higher the resolution the less likely a user is going to have their window maximised (there are some stats somewhere that suggest this too). And I'm not really sure a fluid design is going to look anymore "stupid" than a fixed width design surrounded by acres of whitespace.

> If you know any good examples of sites
> without "barriers", I'd be willing to have a look. I'm
> very keen to have a well designed website.

I can never find examples when people ask, but I have seen some around. Have a look at these templates though, they show quite a few different styles and ways to tackle fluid layouts.

Isn't there a standard width for that resolution? Like 760 was for 600x800 :)

I'd love to go without the fixed width but I'd worry it'd look a bit stupid on the huge monitors, or do they have their browser resolutions set smaller? If you know any good examples of sites without "barriers", I'd be willing to have a look. I'm very keen to have a well designed website.