Why are websites portrait when screens are landscape?

[MegaMan1311]

You are missing out on one thing, a design does not have to be 100% fluid or 100% fixed. There is middle ground. On my site I do something along the lines of width: 47em, with max-width: 90%, and min-width: 20em. This is something that's catching on since 100% fluid on 32" monitors with the browser full screen leads to hard reading. Yea sure, this technique doesn't work on IE since it doesn't support min/max-width, but still the principle is there. Also banners can be made to have some flexibility, depending on the exact banner, there may be some extra part of it that gets hidden with overflow depending on the size of the page. Though again, that's a per basis decision that would need to be made.

You are correct. I was kind of speaking out of experience there. I haven't yet built a site that is a combination. I guess it really does depend on the design and the graphics that you plan for the site.

I suppose the hard part is getting images to expand / contract for different sizes of screens and still look good. Reviewing some of my past sites, I see issues with making my horizontal navs expand, because there would be so much extra room... However, one of my designs that are in development right now could actually be fluid. I think I will make some changes to allow for that and propose it to the customer...

Also, I do not think it is bad practice to use fixed designs. I do think that fluid designs are better when the opportunity to use them arises however, but there is nothing wrong with a fixed design.

 

[angelwatt]

Liquid layout = intelligent scaling and positioning of content;

Don't you mean:
Liquid_layout = "intelligent scaling and positioning of content";
Couldn't resist

Also, I do not think it is bad practice to use fixed designs. I do think that fluid designs are better when the opportunity to use them arises however, but there is nothing wrong with a fixed design.

I agree. It all has its place.

 

[snickelfritz]

Don't you mean:
Liquid_layout = "intelligent scaling and positioning of content";
Couldn't resist

LOL

liquidLayout:GoodDesign = (scaling + positioning) * Intelligence;

 

[MegaMan1311]

LOL

liquidLayout:GoodDesign = (scaling + positioning) * Intelligence;

How about a PHP / Text based version?

$varA = "intelligence";
$varB = "positioning";
$varC = "scaling";
$varD = "liquid layout";
$liquid_layout = $varC ." and ".$varB." multiplied by ".$varA." equals a good ".$varD;
echo $liquid_layout;

 

[arogge]

The problem is that stupid Web developers like to force the text to fit in a particular frame, instead of allowing the text to fit the user's window, regardless of screen resolution or the size of the browser window.

I am hitting more sites nowadays that use Shockwave Flash animations for their text displays. These are unacceptable to me and they are a waste of resources. They are slow to download, require too much CPU time, and do not follow browser standards for page actions and caching.

If I try to access the front page of a Website, and it takes more than 20 seconds to display while downloading at 28.8 kbps, there's something wrong with the Website developer.

I've used MacRumors on a 14.4 kbps modem!

 

[ChicoWeb]

If I try to access the front page of a Website, and it takes more than 20 seconds to display while downloading at 28.8 kbps, there's something wrong with the Website developer.

I've used MacRumors on a 14.4 kbps modem!

We are progressing forward with technology, not regressing. 3% of my viewers view my site on a modem, and I wish I could see if there any that are slower then 56k. You must be .5% - 1% of the population on this one.

 

[ChrisA]

It makes sense (in my head) that the browser would know the size of the window/display and then justify the text accordingly.

Correct. This is how HTML is designed. You simply tagged the parts and the display program knew this is a "heading" and this a "paragraph" and then formatted it to fit on the screen. This is how it should work.

But them some graphic artist, or his employer decided that he wanted to control the exact format of the page. To heck with usability. Things kind of went down hill from that point.

 

[arogge]

We are progressing forward with technology, not regressing. 3% of my viewers view my site on a modem, and I wish I could see if there any that are slower then 56k.

The incorrect assumption is that everybody has a dedicated broadband connection for viewing these types of bloated Websites. I may be downloading images or iTunes movies, uploading to FTP sites, or using my limited bandwidth for other things while also browsing the Web. I may also be using an old mobile phone connection - no 3G connection for me yet.

What is annoying is that Websites that were previously useful and fast are now very slow and unsearchable. They are delivering the same content as before, but they are slower to access and harder to search, because the text is being embedded into animations. That also makes it hard to read on my screen, as I do not view Websites on a huge HDTV. Scrolling is difficult, browser caches are ignored, text cannot be resized unless the Web developer has allowed for resizing in the animated applet, and referencing pages for other people is impossible because the secondary pages within these animated applets cannot be linked with a URL.

I have searched for a few products that I had wanted to buy, and after half an hour of waiting and searching through the manufacturers' animated sites, I finally quit trying to find their products and bought the competitors' products instead. The more difficult it is for me to use a manufacturer's Website, the less that I want to learn about and purchase the product.

It is infuriating to hit Websites that refresh the screen for every mouse click. These Websites seem to download several megabytes every time I click on something, often popping up new animations within the window and forcing me to scroll the window horizontally to see the whole animation and click on another button. I am not sure why Web developers are pushing these types of Websites.

When I want product information, I do not want to watch a 50 MB video in a pop-up window that can't even be saved to the hard drive for later viewing. I do not want loud sounds when I wave my mouse over a button, nor loud music to play in the background, nor do I want animated windows to float around the screen as if they were part of OS X. I want the content, in legible format, immediately. If I don't get that, I quickly lose interest in whatever I was looking to buy or discuss. Other people may simply tolerate the problem, or they pay more money for faster connections, but I cannot tolerate wading through the unnecessary bloat.

 

[scotty96LSC]

Technology has made it easy to insert the "wow" and "geez" into web pages. And just as easily it has taken away from the purpose of the web page -- information. That is now lost behind the effects.

 

[adversecamber]

Ok, thanks everyone.

Bye.