Fixed width layout

[Interferon]

A lot of IPB's design problems stem from the use of a floating width page layout. It seems like the designers tend to fill the page with redundant information because they don't know what else to fill up all the blank space with. If you look around the web, pretty much all companies have decided to use a fixed width layout around 1000 pixels wide. I suggest using 1024 pixels as your width, because that is the native resolution of the iPad. While I don't suggest using Apple's products to make big decisions that affect everyone, the iPad's resolution is within the range of modern fixed width pages, and is as good a number to choose as any.

If you had a fixed width layout, you could design pages much easier, with more depth, because you would know they would always appear the same. With a floating width layout, you are designing a page that may have hundreds of different configurations, so you are more limited.

[Royzee]

If you look around the web, pretty much all companies have decided to use a fixed width layout around 1000 pixels wide. I suggest using 1024 pixels as your width, because that is the native resolution of the iPad.

Yes, companies do tend to use a fixed width. However few of those are forums.

1024 is the minimum width I will design for: there are special skins available for use with iPhone and other pads.

If you had a fixed width layout, you could design pages much easier, with more depth, because you would know they would always appear the same. With a floating width layout, you are designing a page that may have hundreds of different configurations, so you are more limited.

A fixed width is not easier to design pages for, it is harder. For one thing it is easier to break a page layout. As someone who has designed skins for Wordpress, Movable Type and IP.board I believe most of your claims are opposite of reality.

[TracyIsland]

it is easier to break a page layout.

basic question: if it is fixed width, how can it possibly break? The scroll bars just appear on the side and bottom, right? (full disclosure: I am not a web designer so this question may affront the designers in the crowd)

[edit] example: http://www.ge.com/index.html

[Rikki]

I agree; I'd much rather have a fixed-width forum. Unfortunately, many/most people don't seem to agree.

[Aisha]

I have two "sets" of skins on my forum. One is based off ipbs default and we have three of them and another is custom and we have five of them. The custom one fixed (at 960) and the default rip is 80% width. I switch skins on my site all the time and use different computers a lot with varying monitor sizes. Overall, I don't think the end user will really care all that much in my opinion. From a designing aspect though...it can really go either way depending on what you're doing. In the end though, you can always just change it to fit your needs! :P

[Charles]

We experimented with fixed width but it looked... odd. It was like you had this gigantic screen with an itty bity forum in the middle.

[Royzee]

Have to agree with Charles. Many if most are now using wide screen monitors, and a fixed width page looks crappy as hell.

[Interferon]

I can understand your point about a forum, but so little of IPB is the forum. You have blogs, articles, downloads, a gallery, etc. Because images open in a shadow box that can be as wide as the browser window, I am fine with a fixed width forum.

[Ikadon]

I do prefer a fixed width much more, but then again my layouts are heavily dependent on images, artworks and stuff like that.

That's what I prefer:

http://eu.battle.net/wow/
http://www.buffed.de/
http://store.steampowered.com/


Muuuuch better in my eyes, although I have a wide-screen since ~7 years now.

Basically, for me it doesn't matter, I'll never use the standard-skin ;)

edit: What I dislike more is inconsistency. If the site uses a fixed-width style and the forum is fluid or vice-versa .... *grrrr*

[Matt]

As Charles noted, the new skin was fixed width for quite a while. It looked pretty good but we considered that not everyone loves fixed width skins because they browse full width and we've always had a fluid skin since our first release suddenly forcing a fixed width on everyone would cause some consternation.

The fluid skin we have for 3.2 is really good, though. It stretches out nicely if you like that sort of thing and looks just fine on 1024.

[bfarber]

IIRC, you can also change your skin from fluid to fixed width with one or two CSS changes in 3.2.

[Ikadon]

IIRC, you can also change your skin from fluid to fixed width with one or two CSS changes in 3.2.

Really? That's great to hear! In 3.1 it's not that easy, for there are some boxes that use fixed width (login, notifications...) and those you had to style seperately.

Great news :)

[Charles]

Yes when we decided we didn't really like fixed with in 3.2 I think it was 3 lines of CSS to change it to fluid.

[TracyIsland]

I'm a fixed width fan through and through. Not sure why the board looks "puny" in 1024. I just reset my fixed width to 1024 after reading @Supernoob's post that started this topic. I have a 25" monitor and the board looks fine, and in fact seems easier to read with a narrower format than being spread all the way across the screen.

With that said, @Matt - can you guys check the birthday calendar in 3.2 before you release it? Long display names cause it to go haywire, and not follow any kind of fixed layout. It spills everywhere no matter what you try to do to fix it. We have 13 calendars and the only one that goes all squirrely is the birthday calendar. Some months it is fine but others, when a few folks with long display names are celebrating, well, it's Smog Monster meets Myra. Happy to let you and your colleagues have a peak at my board if that will help.

- Brian

[Rikki]

My colleagues will tell you I'm also a fan of fixed width, and only reluctantly agreed to reverse it. However, I do think that the 'fluid' system we have is a big improvement over 3.1 due to some new CSS layouts we've built. Many items on a page remain fixed width - menus, sidebars, most table columns and so on. It's the content areas that resize with the browser. So we won't end up with huge empty sidebars because you have a wide screen, there'll just be more space for content to grow horizontally. It's a good compromise. And as Matt & Charles said, if you want fixed-width, it's literally 2 or 3 lines to uncomment.

[Aughavey]

what would those 2 or 3 lines to uncomment be? am looking to go fixed width ;)

[.time]

what would those 2 or 3 lines to uncomment be? am looking to go fixed width ;)

Search "uncomment" in ipb_styles.css.

[Janyour]

hello
i uncomment those line but i have always width board !

[Matt]

The Visual Skin Editor (available from Admin CP when creating a new skin) allows you to make the skin a fixed width.

[Janyour]

ok thank you matt ;)

[Zone Plate]

As Charles noted, the new skin was fixed width for quite a while. It looked pretty good but we considered that not everyone loves fixed width skins because they browse full width and we've always had a fluid skin since our first release suddenly forcing a fixed width on everyone would cause some consternation.

:lol:

Ok, given the discussion we're having in another thread about removed features - this comment from the past made me laugh at loud. :)

[Jamer]

Have to agree with Charles. Many if most are now using wide screen monitors, and a fixed width page looks crappy as hell.

I agree, much prefer full width

[Jυra]

I have a modern wide screen, fluid looks crappy as hell with stuff spread apart all over including text. A default based on fixed would be nice.

[Joy Rex]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the more practical rationale for fixed-width skins:

how people read - the longer a line of text is for a user to read across from left to right (or right to left), the more fatigued their eyes will become - if you're using a forum on a 1920x1080 monitor, you're reading roughly the distance of two 8.5x11 or A4 width pages for one line of text.

The minimum screen resolution of computers (excluding mobile devices) these days is 1024x768, if you go by Windows 7/Vista's default resolution setting. It used to be 800x600 with Windows XP.

Just my two cents on the matter.

[TCB]

Of course the customer should be able to decide if he wants to use the forum with a fixed width or floating. This should be nothing more than a setting in the ACP.

I don't care which of the two is better. Instead of having a debate on this, just give us the option and let us decide for ourselves (like vBulletin does for example).