<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Webmaster-Source &#187; liquid</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.webmaster-source.com/tag/liquid/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.webmaster-source.com</link>
	<description>Useful Resources For Webmasters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2017 02:01:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.42</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Fixed vs. Liquid Layouts</title>
		<link>https://www.webmaster-source.com/2008/05/21/fixed-vs-liquid-layouts/</link>
		<comments>https://www.webmaster-source.com/2008/05/21/fixed-vs-liquid-layouts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 11:20:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[browsers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[css]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fixed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Explorer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[layout]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liquid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monitor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[screen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.webmaster-source.com/?p=558</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is yet another web-related topic that gets people arguing. Not quite as bad as &#8220;Mac vs. PC,&#8221; it really gets some people going. Which is better, a fixed-width layout, or a fluid one that resizes to fit the browser window. Unlike some people, I say that it depends on the project, and that there [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignright" style="float: right; margin: 5px;;  float: right; padding: 4px; margin: 0 0 2px 7px;" src="http://i31.tinypic.com/15cljsk.gif" alt="" width="250" height="120" />This is yet another web-related topic that gets people arguing. Not quite as bad as &#8220;Mac vs. PC,&#8221; it really gets some people going. Which is better, a fixed-width layout, or a fluid one that resizes to fit the browser window. Unlike <em>some</em> people, I say that it depends on the project, and that there isn&#8217;t a one-size-fits-all solution (though I do lean <em>slightly</em> toward fixed-width layouts). Besides, if we all agreed on standards for everything, we wouldn&#8217;t have anything to argue about..</p>
<p>Both sides of the argument have their pluses and minuses, and generally I would say &#8220;go with what best suits the instance.&#8221; If you want a certain look, which will require vertical tile images, and other images of specific width, you may need to go with a fixed-width layout. If you want as much control as you can get over the look of your design, or if you need your content area to be a specific size, go with a fixed layout.<span id="more-558"></span></p>
<p>Liquid layouts can adapt to the available space in the browser&#8217;s viewport, which makes a site more accessible, avoiding the annoying horizontal scrollbar that fixed-width layouts often generate at low resolutions. If you can put together a good-looking liquid layout that works well in your given scenario, go for it. However, you must rely on the CSS attributes min-width and max-width to make sure that your design can&#8217;t shrink too much, squishing your beautiful design into an illegible mess, or two wide, making for long, hard-to-read lines of text on large widescreen monitors. Too bad the attributes don&#8217;t work on Internet Explorer 6 (big surprise)!</p>
<p>You could also go for a hybrid layout where parts of the design are fixed, and others liquid. You could have a fixed-width sidebar with a liquid content column, for example. I&#8217;ve found that this method works better than having everything based off percentages of ems.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, we&#8217;re plagued by small groups of people with low-resolution monitors, very big widescreen monitors, tiny mobile web phones, and outdated browsers like Internet Explorer. We&#8217;re ill-equipped to handle all the possible scenarios, and far too many people don&#8217;t update their browsers in a timely manner, resulting in a lack of improvement in that area. All we can really do is support as many browsers and resolutions as possible, and wait for people&#8217;s computers to stop working, so they will get a modern machine, resulting in a tiny step forward progress-wise. Eventually Internet Explorer 6 will die-out, giving us better support for liquid layouts, which are becoming more and more important as screen resolutions diversify, having increasingly different aspect ratios as well as pixel dimensions.</p>
<h3>Further Reading&#8230;</h3>
<p>I managed to dig-up a post I found via Smashing Magazine back in August 2007. &#8211; <a href="http://green-beast.com/blog/?p=199">CSS Layouts: The Fixed. The Fluid. The Elastic.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.webmaster-source.com/2008/05/21/fixed-vs-liquid-layouts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/


Served from: www.webmaster-source.com @ 2026-06-09 13:07:52 by W3 Total Cache
-->