Comments on: Resolution dependent layouts are not the future

By: David Simmer

David Simmer — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:18:28 +0000

Not sure how the mention of large resolutions supports your argument ... straight-up percentage-based layouts are the problematic ones when it comes to line length. Resolution-dependent layout tricks can avoid ridiculously long line lengths on large-resolution displays.

Agreed that mobile devices need a different experience, but given how much can be done merely through different CSS, judicious RD layout can provide a significantly better experience for small devices. The Man In Blue's example, changing the content to a single column at smaller widths, hints at this idea.

By: Matt Cassarino

Matt Cassarino — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:25:36 +0000

Nicely done Kyle, I agree with your points across the board. It was a relief to read that 1024 is the max width you see in the future for websites! I think that you are right, even as monitors and resolutions increase as they have over the last few years. Keep up the good work.

By: Rob Poitras

Rob Poitras — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:22:34 +0000

What about sites focused on images and video? I have a 20" widescreen monitor in the portrait position, I would love to view flickr with more pictures displayed per page and make the thumbnails bigger.

I think in the future, the user will have more control on how they view content. Why not let the user drag and resize different parts of the site to their liking? Instead of having the designer pick how its viewed?

By: steve

steve — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:42:16 +0000

The mistake that designers, especially young ones with good eyesight, often make is to design for the aesthetic and not for their audience. Now if your audience is a handful of coders and gamers and don’t mind reading 8 pt type at 1280 x 960 (my laptops res), then by all means give it to ‘em. But the www isn’t just happening in geek forums, it’s happening on commercial sites that will need to design for an aging, sight-challenged, baby-boomer generation. The trend may be to see 800×600 dropping by the wayside for now, but I think that will reverse itself over the next decade. My anecdotal evidence is from 2 (my parents) out of 6 billion people in the world, and their screen res is at 640×480; it’s painful for me to look at and the horizontal scrolling is outrageous, but it works for them.

By: Hector J

Hector J — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:26:33 +0000

I’m not a developer, but a client. I’ve had several web pages developed for different projects that I’ve done.

The only thing that I see as being of any use out of this whole exercise is the ability to perhaps… maybe… possibly… run two columns of text in the centre column of a page design. At 10 x 7 it is not really necessary, though I could see how it would be applicable to higher resolutions.

Given the rise and rise of converged devices and mobile phone browsing, I’d be looking more at designing for those applications. That’s a whole different world to designing for 16 x 12 resolution, or worse, dual-screen browsing.

I read through the linked article and figured it for a developer with a cool toy but little in the way of market research, or regard for its real implications. Techies tend to use the web differently to the average punter, so their idea of a cool trick may simply be a pain in the neck to the average user with a slower connection and no wish or need to mess with html/rtf settings, etc.

By: Paul D

Paul D — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:52:46 +0000

We (Mac users) generally don?t maximise our browser windows.

That is precisely true. I find something just slightly larger than 1024x768 to be a comfortable size for my browser window no matter how large a screen I have. I think that will be the default size for a long time. There's no need to go larger, even if some people have much larger screens.

By: Ronald van der Wijden

Ronald van der Wijden — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:39:29 +0000

Although maybe not earth-shattering or even ground-breaking, it’s an interesting thought.
I’ve been toying with the idea of serving up text in the center section of a three column layout in a single column for lower window widths, and two adjacent text columns for higher widths. Admittedly, I still have to try it on a working example, though, similar to your “I might be using it in the future” sentiment.

By: Roger Johansson

Roger Johansson — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:57:48 +0000

And what the hell do you do on your 30? HD Mac screen with a fluid layout? Punt?

We (Mac users) generally don't maximise our browser windows.

And elastic layout is an excellent alternative to fully fluid layout.

By: Volkher Hofmann

Volkher Hofmann — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:03:47 +0000

Great points. Lately I’ve been tempted by all kinds of new coolness but once I redesign, I’m sure it’s going to be for a 1024*768 again.

By: Wired

Wired — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:33:53 +0000

I?m pretty sure we won?t see layouts passing 1024 in mainstream for the rest of our lives.

Ok Bill Gates :)

Eventually we may see web designers design more for ratios and less for exact numbers. e.g. 16x10 for my 2005FPW, and less for 1680x1050.