Comments on: A summary of CSS-based layout techniques

By: Polina

Polina — Wed, 10 May 2006 21:52:19 +0000

Very nice blog! Thanks Coda! View my http://www.autogirl.info

By: feebs

feebs — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:45:45 +0000

FInalleeee, someone has been nice enough to actually explain all the types of css layouts!, thanks so much

By: coda

coda — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:25:22 +0000

Matt: One can argue that screen resolution trends reveal an increasing number of users with 1024, but that doesn’t necessarily mean their browser window is maximized. I’ve read a couple of times that some users prefer to keep their browser window at 800 irrespective of their resolution. Conversely, I always maximize mine because I prefer to view a site minus any background distraction – so my browser’s viewport is 1400 wide. Sites designed for 800 fixed width suffer at this size, because they don’t benefit from my extra screen realty.

I want to avoid debates on preference but for interest’s sake, the reasoning above is why I keep to liquid layouts that are constrained to a maximum width, and resize to accomodate smaller widths. We have the technologies and methods to apply this concept across all popular browsers and user preferences, so there’s no excuse to design for fixed widths anymore.

The question shouldn’t ask if the world is ready for 1024, but rather if your website is ready for 1024. And 800. And 640.

I sound like a stuck record when I repeat this, but it’s so true: design to accommodate your users and not their resolution/browser/os/etc.

By: Matt Bowden

Matt Bowden — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:56:59 +0000

Interesting use of layout techniques. I have certainly learnt from this post.

What’s your position on 1024 – having mentioned it in one of your examples. Is the world ready for it?

By: coda

coda — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:35:42 +0000

Great example, thanks James

By: James

James — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:26:21 +0000

AOL homepage is now elastic-style… works quite well, too.

By: j. brotherlove

j. brotherlove — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:02:03 +0000

Wow. This is exactly what I needed. I’ll have to play around with some of the newer techniques. Thanks for posting this!

By: paki

paki — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:19:24 +0000

Simple test

By: Mike Purvis

Mike Purvis — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:51:19 +0000

Good summary, and thanks for the link… quite apart from the technical prowess required, there’s definitely a design challenge involved in creating something that’s expandable on two dimensions.

But it’s good to see some folks looking back that way.

By: mayvelous

mayvelous — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:30:09 +0000

This is an excellent reference post, thanks so much for that.
Your feed definitely going to my bloglines.
Cheers