Nigel Rantor wrote:
I've already poked Andy about this when he put up the initial version.
Here's my reply to Nigel, for the benefit of anyone else interested. <reply> Yes. I've always been a fluid-layout kinda guy. 800x600 is annoyingly narrow when you've got a large monitor, so a fluid layout was a big win when you had to assume a minimum width of 800px. But these days, it's considered "officially" OK to assume that 1024x768 is the lowest common denominator for screen width, which gives you a nicely sized bit of content-space to play with. Making it fluid upwards of that tends to result in wide wide columns that are hard to read. So although I used to be staunchly anti-fixed width, I guess I've now been swayed towards them. Making it fluid might be a bit tricky, but probably do-able. I'll have a think about it. </reply> I did have a play with it, but it was hard to make it look half-decent with the non-repeating header. So it was a case of junking the header (which I really liked) or spending a lot of time creating separate layers and building up a sliding doors effect. That would have been really nice if I could have got the parallax effect to work (like on badgerpower.com - resize the window and watch the clouds), but I couldn't. At least not in the time I had. Anyway, the site *does* have both fixed and fluid layouts. It's just that the fluid layout doesn't have the non-repeating header or the sidebars. :-) A