Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bethers The same as the fluid templates - there are plusses and minusses for each. You need to weigh what the effects will be for YOUR site. I chose to not use a fluid template.... (Which is why you'll also see that the major players haven't switched to fluid designs).
I have noticed that some of the major players have switched some things they do from 800 - for example - Yahoo mail has Yahoo mail beta - and it cannot be used on an 800 resolution screen. So, some major players are making changes up to the higher resolutions most of us now use.
If you want to keep the site universally so virtually everyone has no side scroll, then, yes, you need to actually stay at about 780 - because if you design at 800 - you'll even then have a tiny bit of scroll. |
I take definitve stance in opposition to your statements, Beth.
The "major players" have in fact
always been quite keen on using Dream with Flash, php, and aspx sites (and have been the ones with the budgets to start from scratch to do so), which they initially understood to be a means of security and site integrity (preventiung hackers, stripping, etc.) as well as providing the look and feel that would communicate to visitors that they were indeed, serious about their internet fulfillments!
The use of dynamic backgrounds and "fluidity" has played a pivotal role in the very design of their sites, from the colors the used to the layout they dictated!
* And, if you look carefully, you will see these same deep pockets now moving more and more into Flash-based sites (that have been truly SEO'd from everything starting with the code itself to the little "helps" few really know about --
more "proof" later!) as they incorporate more video and RSS to satisfy the growing demand for visual excellence!
Your comment could not have been more off base in that regard! Next, your comment on "the major players" moving away from 800 benchmarks is false. As I mentioned above, the standard of 90% of any templates is 765, 768, and rarely the 780 you mentioned, all purposefully to fit universally within the out-of-the-box formatting browsers still frustrate users with ...... the only thing most have done in the last 3 tumultuous years is move from the "lock-left" and into a centered page position, again allowing the viewers' browsers to maximize the optimal presentation of their sites......this too, is indication that far more "majors" will be getting used to first php/aspx dynamics until they settle on how best to incorporate more visual dynamics such as video, swf, or even Fusion with Flash (if not a true Flash site, which they have concluded offers more "protection" with regard to registered or copyright elements). * Your citing Yahoo's application "beta" as proof means nothing....it is an "inside" application that is still in evaluation, correct? If anything, the perponderance of the internet "majors" have re-inforced the predicted and much discussed trend of moving from Dream (HTML) to the desired CSS+HTML, php, and Flash/Fusion sites, to accommodate the demand for visitor interaction and enhanced converson, now that the questions of optimization have been resolved acceptably and the stability of design has proven more maintenence-friendly. Although I understand your intent, the way you presented your concept and the manner in which you presented your comments was really more counter-productive than necessary, and would tend to influence many to formulate their understandings unfairly (or incorrectly altogether) had I not felt compelled to reply thus.