Web page Layout - Fixed or Liquid?

[dharrison]

Hi all

At the moment, I am having great problems getting my layout just right for the template of my new website. I normally opt for a layout that spans across the whole page, then no matter how big the viewer's screen resolution, it doesn't look pokey.

But I am now beginning to think if a fixed width on a web page is a good idea. Should I have my site at a fixed width or just keep trying to master the "free" layout that I originally intend?

Any thoughts/opinions will be gratefully received.

Best regards,

[Faglork]

Hi Debbie,

IMHO fixed widths are a restriction of a print medium. The web is different - it offers the benefit of liquid layout which can accomodate to any screen size on any output device.

Given the fact that there is a growing number of PDAs, Smartphones and similar "devices", I think that by adhering to old-style fixed widths you are neglecting a growing market.

Additionally, fixed width layouts tend to fall apart when you change font size, namely when using bigger font sizes for better readability. I don't know about www demographics in GB, but here in Germany the fastest growing user group is aged between 40 and 60. Now, this group is also the group which experiences first signs of sight impairment, so they are most likely using bigger fonts. Hard times for fixed layouts, indeed.

You can partially solve your "design problem" with CSS properties like min-width and max-width. But the most widely used Browser (as usual) does not understand this. Luckily, you can use Dean Edward's "IE7" script to overcome this limitation. Just try it:
http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/overview/
... works like a charm.

hth
faglork

PS: Congrats to the well-earned MVP.

[dharrison]

Thanks for your advice (and kind words), Faglork. I guess I do see the point of it, it might just be because I am seeing so many fixed width layouts that my vision has become impaired.

I shall check out this link and badger on with my original liquid layout plan.

ATB

[DrTandem1]

Sometimes the visitor is using a huge monitor and using an expandable design will make reading sentences impractical. You can use CSS or tables to contain the text to a maximum as well as align it left, center or right, while at the same time allow the surrounding layout to expand to the width of the viewing area.

[MeanSEO]

I have been using fixed width for years and have just started moving into the more fluid design.

I am just so tired at looking at my sites on other computers that have wacky settings and the sites look off.

The issue with PDAs is a big deal to me. I pay good money to subscribe to Sirius Satellite Radio, but can’t get it to work on my Treo650 palm cell phone.

I don’t want to build sites that don’t do well in cross platforms and cross browsers so fluid site design seems to fit the bill.

Note that last I checked the new IE beta does a lousy job with CSS and they are supposed to fix this bug.

[G[dot]com]

It all depends on how you can handle the content.

If your sites are pure text, then even with the restrictions DrTandem wisely suggests, go ahead with expansive layouts...

But when you deal with graphics and layouts based on them, like in this case: www.musubiaikido.com.ar tell me how was I supposed to make it "expandable"? I wouldn´t have done it even when finding a solution, but let´s imagine for a while...

On the other hand I really don´t like expansive-ad-infinitum sites. They never look enough cool to me. Neither those which are configured already in 1024x768. Even when I have a 19" monitor with a 1280x1024 resolution. I use the browser as "part of" the screen, not at full screen. Anyway, this is a question of taste.

You will see that almost all pages handle a fixed width or at least a maximun size. Basically when you are dealing I repeat with graphics as core of your design. not even to mention when using flash. I choose fixed width and centered pages that will always remain in a harmonious place.

Abou PDAs and WAP access, I would recommend you that you make special versions for them in xhtml or wml... with their own design, regarding their current "primitiveness".

Just my opion!!! ;-)

[ozchris]

Ditto.

The brother-in-law is only 47 but already has default text set to largest to make it easier on his eyes. Definitely eye-opening, and as a baby boomer he'd represent a large market. (I just squeak in as an X-gen, although I did get the old eyes lasered last year).

The standard fixed width sites (770px) with 3 cols set to large text often work out pretty ugly.

Over Christmas there were some great bargains in laptops in Sydney, finally getting some decent ones under $800AUS. I got one for my son (for educational programs of course), and it was widescreen format.

So in Sydney at least, there'll be heaps of widescreen laptops around.

Again, so much wasted space on the sides of those fixed width sites.

[texxs]

I've always been a fan of the fre-flowing web site that look good ion any browser art any size AND let users resize the text.


Persoanlly I absolutley hate site that bunch all the content up in one are and leave huge margins on either side. Try viewing
this and this with a desktop size above 1024 by 768!


At work they like the fixed width thing (760x480 usually), they think that is only thing that looks "professional" So there you go, two different schools of thought there.

[MeanSEO]

Originally Posted by G[dot

com]
Abou PDAs and WAP access, I would recommend you that you make special versions for them in xhtml or wml... with their own design, regarding their current "primitiveness".

While a good idea, I have yet to have a customer willing to pay extra for that.

[Faglork]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Sometimes the visitor is using a huge monitor and using an expandable design will make reading sentences impractical.

That's what the CSS "max-width" property is intended for ... limitating the size of elements.

As I said, you can get IE to handle this with the IE7 script.

Another solution could be to define the width of text columns by EMs. So the width would depend on the (user-)chosen font size.

Anyway, there are a number of methods to handle the "big monitor problem". But honestly, what are big monitors for? If you have a 1600xsomething, why would you use it for fullscreen windows? They are meant for having multiple windows open at the same time. Having a program like WORD open at 1600 fullscreen is likewise strange ...

And if you use 1280xsomething and big fonts because of impaired vision, everything is ok again (IF you have a liquid design).

The brother-in-law is only 47 but already has default text set to largest to make it easier on his eyes. Definitely eye-opening, and as a baby boomer he'd represent a large market.

Did you ever work in an office? Have you noticed who gets "the work done"? I tell you, it is not the 25-year-old junior executive with the nice big monitor and good eyesight. He hands the work over to the secretary, which is in her/his forties, uses heavy glasses and has to work at a 1024x768, set to 800x600 AND big fonts just so she/he can read and write text easily. And guess who suggests a product or service found on a website? ... ? Right.



As for the "different version for PDA/Smallscreen": No. That's the beauty of XHTML/CSS design. One markup fits all. No extra development. No extra maintainance. No extra costs.

My opinion ...

faglork

[skreger]

We have eliminated this problem by utilizing CSS for web design blended with php. You can see what I am talking about at our website. It will be going live in about 2 days, but you can check it out at test.binarycousins.com

[hallidayny]

Hi - For a lot of site with not a lot of money for development, they have to fit the lowest common denominator. For a fixed width, if the worst you can say is "it's not cool enough," are you working for you or your client? Your client wants ppl to go to the site and have it look good and work, whether they are on a standard 17" monitor at the office or a really nice 21" flat screen (like mine). You will have fewer errors and unpleasant surprises if you lock your layout down, and your sites display similarly on a variety of monitors, platforms and browsers.

[hmoulding]

Originally Posted by skreger

We have eliminated this problem by utilizing CSS for web design blended with php. You can see what I am talking about at our website. It will be going live in about 2 days, but you can check it out at test.binarycousins.com

Hm, I wouldn't say eliminated, since at low res your site's content area gets sqeezed into a horribly narrow column by the fixed width content and news columns, not to mention the double column bullet table at the bottom. That's unless the PHP does something that I can't see by just resizing the browser window and reloading...

[Faglork]

Originally Posted by hallidayny

Hi - For a lot of site with not a lot of money for development, they have to fit the lowest common denominator.

You seem to imply that CSS-driven XHTML designs are more expensive. In fact, they tend to be cheaper. In the long run, they are always cheaper.

Originally Posted by hallidayny

For a fixed width, if the worst you can say is "it's not cool enough," are you working for you or your client?

"it's not cool enough" is never an objective. The worst things you can say for a fixed width design is that
a) most likely it falls apart at bigger font sizes
b) it may not work well on smaller screens
c) the problem aggravates with a) and b) combined

And "working for your client" implies "working for your client's clients", or not? You say it in the next sentence:

Originally Posted by hallidayny

Your client wants ppl to go to the site and have it look good and work, whether they are on a standard 17" monitor at the office or a really nice 21" flat screen (like mine).

That's the problem. Almost ALL designers I know have 21" (me too) and they almost never bother what it might look like on a 12" or a device with 320x200.

Try viewing some sites on 800x600 with font size set to "big" and you will see what I mean. Oh, and do not just set the window pixel width to 800x600 ... you have to actually change screen resolution to see the effect.

The "ppl" with a 21" are rare, and many 17" operate at 800x600, as do many laptops. Add the growing market of PDA users.

"Your client wants ppl to go to the site and have it look good and work"
--> exactly. Whether they are on 21" or 5".

Originally Posted by hallidayny

You will have fewer errors and unpleasant surprises if you lock your layout down,

As I said above, you run into a lot of problems with fixed widths as well.

Originally Posted by hallidayny

and your sites display similarly on a variety of monitors, platforms and browsers.

This is a question of your designer skills.

Obviously, we have two different lines of thinking here:

a) a print style oriented approach, which clings to the pixel-perfect fixed world of printed media and serves mainly younger PC users

b) a web-oriented "flow-style" approach which strives to serve a multitude of "devices" from PC to Laptop to PDA to smartphone.

You can get good results with either approach. It depends on the project, there is no general advice to "use a fixed design" or "use a liquid design".

One last note: Using fixed widths does NOT automatically imply that it won't work on small screens. Many devices render the pages different to adapt the pages to the smaller screen. Just give it a try - either use OPERA's or FF's small screen rendering mode. While not perfect, it will give you an idea what your pages might look like on a "device".

faglork

[RJ38]

I have found, and use this script to adjust page and font size so they can be rendered properly in any resolution.

Simply write a js file, name it choose_css.js,

// choose_css.js
  // -------------
  // choose the appropriate stylesheet according to
  // the user's screen resolution

  document.write("<link rel='stylesheet' type='text/css' href='");

  if (window.screen.height <= 600) {
    //resolution is 800x600 or less
    document.write("cs1.css'>");
  } 
else if (window.screen.height <= 768) {
    //resolution is 1024x768 
    document.write("cs2.css'>");
  }
else {
    document.write("cs.css'>");
  }

Place this in the head of your pages,

<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="choose_css.js"></script>

Then design your css files (cs1.css for 800X600, cs2.css for 1024x768, cs.css for others)for the resolution being called. The larger resolution pages can have larger font size to make the reading easier. Of course you can modify it to call any resolution you choose to.

For more info just Google, choose_css.js

[Jabber_uk]

My twopenny worth:

1. Choosing fixed width gives you (the designer) control over the 'look and feel' of the page (site).

2. Choosing fluid means that content will expand so that even on different resolutions the page will fill (or almost fill (if using width="80%" for instance) the browser window.

Choosing number two can make the site look ok in most resolutions but can cause 'look and feel' problems so you have to make the site more 'generic' to compensate.

I try and work with both types if I can. For instance using nested tables where the parent is a set width and the child tables flow.

I mumble on - thats all I have to say for now apart from that it also depends on who the potential visitor of the site is. If they are likely to be an older generation visitor who perhaps likes to see large fonts etc then your answer is there. If they are likely to be young and hip ;-) then perhaps some flash design and more flowing code.

[Faglork]

Originally Posted by RJ38

I have found, and use this script to adjust page and font size so they can be rendered properly in any resolution.

And YOU decide for ME what is a "proper" font size? For YOUR eyes or for MINE? On YOUR monitor or MINE?
Kindly let ME chose my prefered font size.

Originally Posted by RJ38

The larger resolution pages can have larger font size to make the reading easier.

What if I chose to use a 1600xsomething and open several smaller windows? I get the same big font size although it is not called for.

Why not simply let the USER decide about the "proper" font & window size?

Originally Posted by Jabber_uk

Choosing number two can make the site look ok in most resolutions but can cause 'look and feel' problems so you have to make the site more 'generic' to compensate.

No, you don't *have to*. This is dependent on your designer skills.

On the other hand, I find most fixed width sites to be of a rather 'generic' type ...

faglork

[WebMasterKrames]

COMMON WEB DESIGN MYTH: Expandable web design is best because it fills up the whole screen.

Just because you are able to make tables expand doesn't mean it's the best thing to do. Someone with a monitor set to a very large size would find your site very annoying if they had to try and read a column of text 12 inches wide. I leave web sites that do that because I can probably find the info somewhere else on the web that's easier to read.

Just because you have space available doesn't mean you need to use it all. It's a basic graphic design principle that a lot of web people without graphic design training aren't aware of. The worst culprates of this are car dealership newspaper ads, they cram as much as they can they can in the space they have and I loath the day I have to look for another car because of it. A lot of comunity web sites that use pre-made templates commit this tragic mostake as well.

I design my web sites to fill up an 800x600 monitor and they are fixed at that size, because it's a good column size for readability.

[WebMasterKrames]

COMMON WEB DESIGN MYTH: Expandable web design is best because it fills up the whole screen.

Just because you are able to make tables expand doesn't mean it's the best thing to do. Someone with a monitor set to a very large size would find your site very annoying if they had to try and read a column of text 12 inches wide. I leave web sites that do that because I can probably find the info somewhere else on the web that's easier to read.

Just because you have space available doesn't mean you need to use it all. It's a basic graphic design principle that a lot of web people without graphic design training aren't aware of. The worst culprates of this are car dealership newspaper ads, they cram as much as they can they can in the space they have and I loath the day I have to look for another car because of it. A lot of comunity web sites that use pre-made templates commit this tragic mostake as well.

I design my web sites to fill up an 800x600 monitor and they are fixed at that size, because it's a good column size for readability.

[Mac 5]

Personally I'm a fan of fixed layout. If your motivation is monitor size, I try to make it fit a small monitor and window can be resized and it doesn't affect text. I also think beyond the monitor and make a page that can be printed out at 100% and the width fits on a piece of 8 1/2 x 11 paper, about 580 to 632 pixels wide. Nothing bugs me more than printing out a fixed webpage and getting a stack of paper with 2 pages to print each page, one with the bulk of the page and a second sheet with a sliver of the edge of the page. Because most people don't think of this when designing, so I try to print pages at 75% to avoid the extra pages.

But with your question of fixed vs. free flowing I think it depends on your motivation. Why do you want it free flowing. Is it for different size computer monitors, or the small screen market: pda, cell phones w/ internet & other hand held devices.

If your motivation is for the growing demand of pda and small screen market you could make a scaled down site with simplified page, less empahasis on huge graphics. Make a simple site with text styled with CSS and pictures that reflow and allow the browser to be scaled big or small with ease. Test it on different monitors, browsers, hand held devices and get a happy medium of where it looks good all around.

[promarkweb]

Faglork,

If you are using that JS to pick the "style sheet" based on resolution, couldn't you still do your font sizes using percentages so that when you change that in your browser, it kicks it up, or is that not possible?

Obviously, I'm still learning. I'm working within some of the issues discussed at a new design I'm doing.

http://www.ruggedlaptops.us/introduc...computers.html

I'd love feedback on this page. It seems to work all the way down to 800x600, but if you go to the "larger" or "largest" font size at 800x600, well, then it looks like crap.

But how many blind people are using 800x600 at the largest font setting?

One a side note, for those discussing "pda's" and such. Can't you define a style sheet for that medium, that creates a layout just for them? If you're concerned about it?

In the same way that I create a "print" style sheet that leaves out some random content so that the print comes out nicer and more readible.

Oh well, I guess this is a world of building a better mousetrap right?

Lets all have fun with it.

[xhtml]

See this sample for liquid pages:

http://www.1computer.info/1work_internet_en.html

Best reguards.

Raoul

[goofus]

Definately use fluid (expandable) design, but don't be afraid to have fixed-width elements within that layout - ie, a 600px wide table which is centered to the screen in case the window is viewed full-screen. Leverage the flexibility in this medium by using both fluid & fixed types of design (separately or in concert) as the situation warrants. Try to approach it from the users' perspective.

What's up with Faglork, anyway?

And YOU decide for ME what is a "proper" font size? For YOUR eyes or for MINE? On YOUR monitor or MINE?
Kindly let ME chose my prefered font size.

Don't get all sensitive!
There is a great benefit in controlling your font sizes with CSS, namely that you eliminate the ability of the user to destroy your layout design by increasing the font size and expanding the fonts' containing elements. Remember that fonts expand ANY AND ALL of their containing elements, regardless of the parameters controlling those elements (or the fonts are cropped in the case of an style="overflow:hidden;" parameter). In any case, I think it's a good idea to keep control over the font size. Do make it big enought to read, though. Even younger viewers can be frustrated by tiny fonts.

Bottom line, don't think you have to commit to one layout style or the other. Just do what works.

[MarcieZoob]

I prefer to design with fixed-width elements, especially in regard to text. Text that spans an entire wide-screen laptop, for instance, is much too hard to read (it's easy to get lost when moving your eye down to the next line, it's even easier to leave the website).

I'm a control freak when it comes to design and layout, which is why I prefer a fixed layout. You can fool the visitor by filling the screen with color and graphics while keeping the content at a manageable size for reading and navigating.

I also prefer designs that center the content instead of layouts that are positioned off to the left with empty space filling the right. Those types of sites feel lopsized to me.

[Faglork]

Originally Posted by goofus

There is a great benefit in controlling your font sizes with CSS, namely that you eliminate the ability of the user to destroy your layout design by increasing the font size and expanding the fonts' containing elements.

?

How are you going to do that? If I use my own styles to view your page, my settings override your settings. And if I change my font-size, there is no way for you to stop me - unless you try to force me to use IE, which cannot change "fixed" font-sizes.

You just *think* you are in control. Actually, the user is in control.

faglork

[dharrison]

Originally Posted by goofus

Don't get all sensitive!

I think the point being made here goofus, that if you dictate your layout, font size or whatever, its the visitor that calls the shots. I thnk the said statement was made in the opinion of the viewer of your website.

I think fixing the font is counter-productive, especially for the visually impaired. That is one of the many reasons why a liquid layout favours the fixed layout. If you really must fix font size, use percentages rather than pixels/points whatever.

If you were working in printing, would you ban readers using a magnifying glass?

Although I do agree with your idea for fixed width within a fluid layout.

[JuniorOnline]

Hi ALL,

many thanks for Debbie who started of this post. I never came across the term "Fluid design".

I came across this website, thought I share it with those who are new to the term as myself

Fluid website design

thanks,
T

[dharrison]

Thanks T

That website link is actually very informative and a good example of fluid (or liquid) layout.

[OneMoreBite]

Originally Posted by dharrison

That website link is ... a good example of fluid (or liquid) layout.

Yes, although it's fluid to a point, meaning if you are looking at it on an ultra wide screen there is a certain point where it no longer stretches, and instead leaves a blank area on the right-hand side, and also, if you look at it on a too narrow screen (they decided what was too narrow), then you lose the right-hand of their site entirely off the edge of the page.

So, you see, even fluid design can be constrained.

I like design that limits the stretch, so fluid, yes, but don't let it just stretch forever or you lose your readability.

Warmly,
Kathryn

[chandrika]

I have a site that I am in the middle of building, that I decided to put in 100% tables. Having read this thread I think I should change it. I hadnt considered those whose monitors may be huge and how the sentences would become hard to read.

So anyway, if I do change it can I just put my 100% table inside a box controlled by css that has max and minimum widths, I dont know if I can do that? It would save so much time, but then again i heard that using tables is a negative for search engines because of all the code. So I cant decide whether to just start the design again putting it all in css, or whether to just whap the table into a css styled box with max and min widths.

I wondered what you decided to do Debbie and whether the time spent changing it all over to css would be time well spent for future rankings?

[dharrison]

Hi chandrika

I used 100% width tables for my current website and it is still liquid. Its not ideal for SEO but it is readable from various resolutions. For my current website, I hope to opt for liquid layout combining <div></div> tags and CSS as these avoid all the unneccessary tags created by tables.

The real issue here was with fixed size tables or <div layout(table size="760px"). These are quite restricting and look pokey on anything above 800x600.

As for starting again, it depends how far into the development stage you are. If you think it can be done using div layout and CSS, try putting together a template using the layout you have already got and see how it turns out. You might need to do a fair amount of tweaking to start with.

HTH

[Faglork]

Originally Posted by OneMoreBite

I like design that limits the stretch, so fluid, yes, but don't let it just stretch forever or you lose your readability.

Since all other issues have been discussed, I'd like to talk about this one, as it will have a big impact on the page (block width/height).

Just how long can a line get without losing its readability?

1) after a certain length, the eye cannot effortlessly go back to the beginning of the next sentence. Just how long is that? Does it depend on the text size as well? In that case, EMs would be preferred as unit for marking up column width.

2) Same applies to the leading. After a certain amount, it is difficult to jump to the beginning of the next sentence. So what is the appropriate leading, and what unit should be used?

3) AFAIK the average reader can keep about 7 words in "cache memory" (so to speak) to compute the context. Would that mean that the ideal reading length is about at least 7 words? In that case, column width should be

(average word length of your text) x 7 = (column witdh expressed in em)

4) Any other issues?

5) If we put all that together, can we get a formula to calculate column width?


faglork

[dharrison]

5) If we put all that together, can we get a formula to calculate column width?

Sounds like you just have

[chandrika]

Originally Posted by Faglork

3) AFAIK the average reader can keep about 7 words in "cache memory" (so to speak) to compute the context. Would that mean that the ideal reading length is about at least 7 words? In that case, column width should be

(average word length of your text) x 7 = (column witdh expressed in em)

Well thats interesting and looking at a few magazines I have lying around it looks like that formula is used for print, most articles (at least those that I have in mags here) do adhere to that average 7 word width and are displayed in columns that way instead of spanning the whole page.

You learn something new everyday.

[drummin]

So anyway, if I do change it can I just put my 100% table inside a box controlled by css that has max and minimum widths, I dont know if I can do that?

Sure...
Infact, make a CSS style of say,
.pagewidth {width:760px}
Then replace the width="100%" in your table with class="pagewidth"...

Then if down the road, you want to change the width of all your pages, just change the CSS.
Hope that helps.
Drummin

[bj]

I've been using variations of this layout, The Jello Piefecta, because it solves a lot of the issues that have been talked about here. The one thing I'm doing differently is putting all the ie hacks in a separate stylesheet called in a conditional comment that targets IE6 and earlier so that down the road I won't have sites fall apart in IE7 (or I'll have to add a special IE7 stylesheet called by a second conditional comment targeting IE7, the more likely eventuality, based on the MS track record with css.)

You folks who use only fixed layouts-- You MUST test them in IE to view/text size/ Largest and in FF to view/text size/increase (three clicks minimum) and I have a feeling you'll be jumping on the fluid bandwagon. I have successfully designed fixed width sites that take font resizing gracefully but it is MUCH harder to design in. That's my two bucks (inflation.)

[chandrika]

Originally Posted by bj

this layout, The Jello Piefecta,

I like that because even though there is the customary left hand side column, the middle content column is first in the source making it good for SEO as well.

[Webnauts]

For what ever layout you will decide, keep these techniques in mind: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-CSS-TECH...tax-data-types

What about my new layout/redesign (still in design/development process) here http://www.webnauts.net/redesign/ :)

[cashcannon]

Isnt liquid and fixed sort of the same thing?
I thought liquid was the term for centered sites that go from top to bottom(like water does) thus with a fixed with of +/-750px...

[Faglork]

Originally Posted by chandrika

So anyway, if I do change it can I just put my 100% table inside a box controlled by css that has max and minimum widths

If it weren't for that bastard of all bastards of browsers (no names here), you could do that very easily. In fact, most problems with modern CSS layout techniques have their origin in IE's (ooops) godawful CSS implementation. The properties you need are min-width and max-width - both are not supported by IE.

However, if you want to delve into that, try Dean Edwards IE7 script. This will solve a lot of other issues as well:
http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/compatibility/

Install it, and you will code like you never coded before.

Originally Posted by cashcannon

Isnt liquid and fixed sort of the same thing?
I thought liquid was the term for centered sites that go from top to bottom(like water does) thus with a fixed with of +/-750px...

No, "liquid design" refers to a design which is adaptable as far as possible, like, say, working equally well on 320x240 AND 1200x1154 or whatever. The ultimate goal would be a design completely independent from screen resolution.

Not that I said "working" and not "displaying" - with 320x240 you need to rearrange lements to make the design usable, so it may not "display" as nice as on 1024x768 ...

BTW, I found a nice basic layout:
http://positioniseverything.net/articles/onetruelayout/

hth,
faglork

PS: What happened to Chandrika's post??

[bj]

I like that because even though there is the customary left hand side column, the middle content column is first in the source making it good for SEO as well.

Yes, Chandrika, that's why that's one of my fave three column layouts. And if you look at the "jello calculator" linked to from that page, you'll see that there's a two column version with the navigation column on the left yet the content column is first in source code. And it's got min and max width built in so the layout can flex gracefully but never get TOO big.

I tried "One True Layout" and couldn't suss it . . . yet.

Oh, one warning-- any negative margin layout like Jello Piefecta or the Ryan Brill layout can cause UNEXPECTED heartache and pain if you try to theme for WordPress 2.0 using them. Weird and inexplicable things occur in the sidebar content, things that will cause much headbanging and screaming of curses in many languages since the code will appear fine, and in fact the theme will work wonderfully if tested on a WordPress 1.5.x installation. This won't happen in every neg margin theme, but has happened in enough for me to choose simpler non-neg-margin layouts if I'm coding for WordPress 2.0.

[Faglork]

There's an excellent article over at ALA about "elastic design", addressing many issues of liquid designs:

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/elastic


faglork