11-08-2003, 06:36 AM
Feeling a bit nostalgic I went to visit an old friend. In this case my old friend was Yahoo.
I discovered that Yahoo has taken on the 'thin' look that so many sites seem to have adapted these days. I don't mind the thin look, but what happened to the days when a site took up the whole screen? Do you think more sites will adopt this look or is it just a phase? What are the pro's and con's of a thin site compared to a full screen site?
11-08-2003, 07:27 AM
I, for one, think that is becoming overused. When it wasn't so widely used (about 2 months ago LOL), I thought it looked cool, in a way. I know that it makes complete control over the layout possible, but I see it being applyed in situations that would look better if they expanded to fill the browser.
Personally, in at least a few instances anyways, I think it is due to the designer not knowing, or not wanting to bother with, the extra bit of effort it takes to make the page resize properly. Some pages have to much whites space already let alone accentuate it with another "x" amount of margin. It also needs to be handled properly so that it stays centerred or to the left if one is preferable.
I also truly believe that there are a lot of designs taking place on systems that are ckecked on only one setting, either 800/600 or 1024/768 ( I have come across pages that were only going to fit without horizontal scroll at at least 1200px width!)
I guess that to small is better than to big so if you just are going to make it one size, "skinny" is the right choice. At least everyone can view it properly then.
And some designs DO look way better at 'skinny' size![o;
PS. Almost forgot!- I think it is just a phase, more and more 1024/768 + viewers all the time, Personally, I like to see as much content as possible at a time. I use 1600/1200 and still it isn't big enough sometimes. You should see thos itty-bitty little pages then! LOL [o;
3b says - Good topic!