Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005

[timwhit]

I recently found this website which talks about bad web design. I found most of the 10 points to be quite true.

I found point 9 (Frozen Layouts with Fixed Page Widths) to be a little weird. Personally, I prefer fixed width websites, this way everything is always in the same spot regardless of screen resolution. I also prefer designing a website this way. I never have to worry about things getting screwed up because someone runs a super high resolution. As long as the fixed width is not too wide for common lower resolutions such as 1024x768 and even 800x600 (if anyone actually runs a resolution that low any more) you don't have to worry.

Thoughts?

 

[CougTek]

If fixed width is a problem inside discussion forums, just ask Santilli to post something and your original intended width will be screwed.

 

[ddrueding]

I remember reading somewhere that 800x600 is down to like 15% of the userbase, but they all seem to be my clients

Does anyone here consider designing for a fixed-width 1024x768 a "bad practice"?

 

[Mercutio]

Fixed width is bad.

If you've ever used housecall.antivirus.com from "Safe Mode with Networking", you'll understand.

 

[timwhit]

Fixed width is bad.

If you've ever used housecall.antivirus.com from "Safe Mode with Networking", you'll understand.

Housecall serves a very specific purpose. Most websites are not viewed from safe mode.

 

[Buck]

I code for 1024 x 768, but make sure that it works fine at 800 x 600. I also tend not to create a fixed width website.

 

[Will Rickards]

I've seen Jakob Nielsen's site before.
His name sure is not easy to type.
A lot of the blogging web developers take his advice with a grain of salt.
Most of the time there is truth there but extremes are just that.

But fixed width is bad in general.
Think about cell phone browsing or a future with resolutions and devices we haven't thought of.

I usually design pages using ems so it can be resized easily.
And most of the stuff I do isn't too complicated with regard to layout.

 

[Mercutio]

Housecall serves a very specific purpose. Most websites are not viewed from safe mode.

As it happens, I tend to agree that Jakob Neilsen's ideas are essentially full of shit. At one time his design guidelines included having an introductory logo or image as the front page of any web site, which explains those 2MB Flash intro screens on every Taiwanese semiconductor firms' web sites.

But fixed width really can be a problem. Horizontal scrolling is EVIL, and from my trainer job I know that a HUGE portion of users don't even realize that you CAN scroll horizontally, let alone that sometimes, you HAVE to. Those people can miss whole swathes of functionality on a web page, and that's not cool.

Better to just let the browser flow the text. If you wanna do a print layout, go pirate Quark Express.

 

[timwhit]

If fixed width is so exil, then why do so many websites go that route?

I'm not saying that all websites should be fixed width.

However, Six of the top ten websites in the English speaking world are fixed width (from Alexa, which I know is not the best source, but, it's better than nothing).

 

[Mercutio]

I suspect it's because a lot of web sites were designed by people whose heads are still up their print-publishing asses.

 

[Will Rickards]

Which six are you talking? Yahoo, ebay, ?
Yahoo isn't strictly fixed width, try resizing the text and the whole page resizes. Ebay is fixed width on the home page but go to a results listing or an item listing.

 

[Handruin]

It's easier to design a fixed-width IMHO, but I prefer variable width. The variable width is harder to anticipate the expansion and contraction of images in a flowing & nice design. For simple example, the SF logo is designed for the variable width (to a certain dgree) because the blue section off to the right isn't actually a fixed-width image. This allows you to adjust your browser to any size and the blue flows with it (up to a certain point).

The two terms I've heard a lot more recently describing the layout choices are "Fixed" and "Liquid".

 

[LOST6200]

If fixed width is a problem inside discussion forums, just ask Santilli to post something and your original intended width will be screwed.

ROTFLMAO!

 

[sechs]

In my opinion, fixed-width is lazy.

If you can't be bothered to build a site that looks good on my computer, why should I bother?

 

[timwhit]

So, you won't be visiting?

www.microsoft.com
www.ibm.com
www.msn.com
etc.

 

[timwhit]

Rather than simply agreeing to agree. Read this article about some of the benefits of fixed width designs.

There is no definite right or wrong answer here, just because you say something is wrong doesn't make it wrong.

 

[sechs]

So, you won't be visiting?

www.microsoft.com
www.ibm.com
www.msn.com
etc.

In general, no.

 

[LunarMist]

Flash is the worst abomination of the web. It should be banned.