In recent months and years, I have noticed a move toward “fixed width” layouts. Apparently it’s now cool for a website to define a specific pixel width for all pages despite the user’s needs. I remember a time when a web page layout would “flow” with changes in the width of a browser window, but apparently the widespread use of larger displays and higher screen resolutions has fooled webdesigners into employing fixed-width layouts.
However, I (for some unknown reason) elected to use K2′s dynamic page width option. After spending this weekend playing with a tablet pc, I have come to (re)appreciate the benefits of a dynamic-width layout. The tablet pc that I am using boasts an 8.4″ screen with an 800×600 resolution. This is quite a change from my desktop, which runs at 1365×1024.
When browsing the web, I like to use the device in landscape mode simply because so many sites look bad at any lower resolution. However, when reading long stretches of text, it becomes more convenient to change to portrait mode to view more text with less scrolling. Unfortunately, it would seem that most fixed width designs target an audience with a minimum screen width of 800 pixels. While this approach does make sense, I want to view information on a screen that is now 600 pixels wide. Here the dynamic-width layout shines as it reflows the content to display aesthetically on both a 600 pixel wide display and a 1600 pixel wide display. Sites employing fixed-width layouts look good at 1600 pixels (even if they don’t make use of the all the available space), but they choke at 600 pixels.
As more and more people began to employ smaller devices capable of displaying full web content, albeit in a smaller space, webdesigners need to consider the benefits of the dynamic-width design. Not only does it look good on the latest high resolution displays, but it retains its functionality in a new era of smaller web-enabled PCs – and that’s still cool in my book.