How important do you think liquid CSS is?

uqwebdesign · #1 Jun 4th, 2006, 15:39

I've been designing sites for a couple of years and haven't really bothered with liquid CSS, I've just designed my sites for a specific resolution specified by them.

Do you think I should learn about liquid CSS and utilise it in my future sites, or is your opinion that it's overrated?

masonbarge · #2 Jun 4th, 2006, 17:55

You really have to do something for people on 800x600 monitors - they hate having to scroll sideways. Liquid is best if your site can stand it, otherwise you need an alternate style sheet or just a site that fits into 800x600 resolution. It isn't hard to do liquid, it's just a case of whether your design can handle it. It can get tough if you want three columns and have graphics.

Rob · #3 Jun 4th, 2006, 18:29

I think liquid is often seen used in combination with the max-width property.... simply because some designs can look very odd at big resolutions.

Liquid design is becoming more and more popular... they are generally pretty flexible across a number of devices, but then.... it all comes down to personal taste at the end of the day.

ukgeoff · #4 Jun 4th, 2006, 18:34

As has already been said your design needs to work at 800 x 600 without having to scroll sideways. Users hate it.

I recently checked the stats and 16% of users are still using 800 x 600.

You have to decide if you feel there is any benefit to the end user of having a fluid layout.

Typically you would only have the main content area change in width in a three column layout.

IMO this is not hard but it raises its own questions. Users apparently do not like to scan long lines of text on screen, so what do you do about that?

Also consider the fact that a lot of users whilst having larger screens and resolutions do not work with the browser, or other applications for that matter, at full screen size.

At the moment, I'm still in the design for 800 x 600 camp and centre the design in the browser window.

uqwebdesign · #5 Jun 4th, 2006, 18:55

Interesting point Geoff, I too was in this camp a few months ago.

I'd read somewhere else, can't remember where now, that the % of users at 800x600 was under 10% (your figures were probably more accurate than mine) so have recently been designing with 1024x768 in mind just for my own site, and using whatever a client has stated to me for theirs.

I think from what people are saying I will look into liquid, I did try it on my current layout but differences between firefox and ie were annoying me so I gave up after a while. I'll definitely look into it for the next site I do though.

What do others think?

Rob · #6 Jun 4th, 2006, 19:10

Like I said.... fluid is fine... but max-width is your friend.

minute44 · #7 Jun 5th, 2006, 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob

Like I said.... fluid is fine... but max-width is your friend.

Bare in mind that max/min width is not always interpreted well by IE

jpmitchell · #8 Jun 5th, 2006, 14:12

@minute44 - guess what IE7 has fixed Min/Max Width.

Also I think the user resolution percent is going to be based on the site market. For example if a particular site is for web designers and developers then their resolution is likely to be higher and thus the 800x600 percent will be lower. But if a site is geared toward churches for example the 800x600 percent will be much higher.

So you have to target your design and your implementation to the audience.

my $0.02

minute44 · #9 Jun 5th, 2006, 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpmitchell

@minute44 - guess what IE7 has fixed Min/Max Width.

Also I think the user resolution percent is going to be based on the site market. For example if a particular site is for web designers and developers then their resolution is likely to be higher and thus the 800x600 percent will be lower. But if a site is geared toward churches for example the 800x600 percent will be much higher.

So you have to target your design and your implementation to the audience.

my $0.02

Have you tried the IE 7 beta?

Man, it may have fixed the min/max width thing but it still sucks!

jpmitchell · #10 Jun 5th, 2006, 14:39

I have been using IE7 beta ever since it went public. Its at least a step in the right direction.

herkalees · #11 Jun 5th, 2006, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by minute44

Bare in mind that max/min width is not always interpreted well by IE

Do a search on IE + min width + expression, it's a good fix that works 100% of the time.

It's not really a hack either, just a property/value that only IE understands.

minute44 · #12 Jun 5th, 2006, 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by herkalees

Do a search on IE + min width + expression, it's a good fix that works 100% of the time.

It's not really a hack either, just a property/value that only IE understands.

oh cool, only problem is... how's your audience gonna know? Good for techies but not for the audience.

herkalees · #13 Jun 5th, 2006, 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by minute44

oh cool, only problem is... how's your audience gonna know? Good for techies but not for the audience.

I don't follow you, why would the audience need to know? If they're using IE, and a min/max-width effect is working out nicely, they're happy and non-the-wiser

minute44 · #14 Jun 5th, 2006, 17:04

sorry, I think I misunderstood you.

I thought you were saying that there was a plug-in that the user had to download for IE to interpret min/max width right.

I was saying; shouldn't making things display correctly fall on the designer and not the user?

herkalees · #15 Jun 5th, 2006, 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by minute44

sorry, I think I misunderstood you.

I thought you were saying that there was a plug-in that the user had to download for IE to interpret min/max width right.

I was saying; shouldn't making things display correctly fall on the designer and not the user?

Yup, a little misunderstanding. No plugin needed, IE listens to the expression property when it's placed in the CSS file.

The user just browses in their undies and doesn't know the difference.

craig · #16 Jun 6th, 2006, 02:12

IMO, I.E 7 was the biggest let down. It may have fixed a couple of things but its screwed around with some big ones. It fucks up CSS navigation a fair bit, and is more of a memory hog than Firefox.
I'll stick to Firefox, just wish it would come with every computer

herkalees · #17 Jun 6th, 2006, 02:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by craig

It fucks up CSS navigation a fair bit...

While IE7 didn't fix all CSS bugs, it definitely hasn't created any new ones. If you're experiencing broken css nav, look at your code, not IE7.

jpmitchell · #18 Jun 6th, 2006, 03:27

I agree with herkalees. IE7 isnt perfect, but it truly has come leaps and bounds from its 6 year old IE6 where nearly everything had to be hacked or worked around to get it to display as the standards called for. So if something is wrong it is

		Webforumz.com > Main Forums > Design Your Website > Web Page Design
How important do you think liquid CSS is?