W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: question: fixed vs. liquid layout

From: Marco Trevisan > Bazzmann|Mag <info@bazzmann.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:13:38 +0200
Message-ID: <40CFF322.1070403@bazzmann.com>
To: Jim Thatcher <jim@jimthatcher.com>
Cc: 'Gregg Vanderheiden' <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, 'W3C WAI' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Jim Thatcher ha scritto:

> Hi Marco,

Hi Jim,

> Which is new and which is old? http://www.bazzmann.com/standard/ is what you
> call flexible, right? And this, http://www.bazzmann.com/, is fixed.  

The first ( bazzmann.com/standard ) is the old.

> But I don't now which is new. Which one was more readable and easier to use?
> I hope the flexible one, http://www.bazzmann.com/standard/, but am not sure.

Sounds really strange, but the fixed one is better for users. But, note,
I'm just talking about flexible or fixed width of the design, not about
contrast, colors and so on.

The first one, at 1024x768, use about 126 chars width (the flash news of
W3C, for example), the second one about 80 chars width (50 chars if you
increase font up to 150% of normal size). Less width resulted more
readable than "wide". It's curious, and interesting in the same time.

Naturally this version is not the definitive one, we are hardly working
about set of stylesheets, testing our own CMS (the engine of the current
version) and typography, color, form, balance, contrast, texture,
compatibility, layout stability, usability and... accessibility.

-- 

Aloha,
Marco Trevisan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Bazzmann|Mag > E' nato il design molecolare. | http://www.bazzmann.com
< Bazzmann Srl > Design molecolare applicato.  | http://www.bazzmann.it
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 03:14:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:30 GMT