> Sites designed "for" widths defined in px are not designed for the web, > they're designed for resolutions (and thus to exclude comfort and/or > usability for those using other resolutions), as print designs are for > particular paper, cover or billboard sizes. Conversely, designs styled for > the web are resolution independent, working well even when width is below > 800px or above 1280px. >
This sounds a little purist and not particularly practical for many designers. While graphics generated by the css are fluid, images are not so while fonts and html elements may wax and wane at will, graphics designed for the page remain fixed per pixel. You can't say that pages designed for widths are not designed for the web. If a page is designed to look good in a web browser it is designed for the web. I cut my teeth on design for print but built pages in a flexible way. I used Quark and used tags and style sheets so that I didn't have to take the page apart if it needed modifying. For my latest website I have designed it for a fixed width but all the graphic elements have been built so that if my client wants to change the width I simply edit the style sheet rather than going back to Photoshop. This approach is good for any design discipline. When css freed me from tables I actually started designing the way I had for print (you can do print design that is resolution independent - moreso than you can for web browsers). I'm glad this discussion came along because it blurs the difference between fluid and fixed width design and asks more fundamental questions. -- Chris Price 0777 629 0227 follow me at http://twitter.com/hypergossip_uk and http://facebook.com/chris.t.price ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
