Yesterday, we noticed that the NYTimes.com was experimenting with, among other changes, a so-called “liquid layout” that stretches article page content to fill the full width of the browser window, even at high resolutions. These pages can also be squeezed down to about 775 pixels wide before the horizontal scrollbar appears at the bottom. At the moment, most article pages linked from the homepage seem to be using this template.

We’ve done a fair amount of thinking on the issue of screen resolution and its impact on design decisions, so we got to work writing a blog post analyzing the Times’ move. Along the way, we paused to add our voice to the discussion already in process on this topic over on Signal vs. Noise . The comments were already shaping up to be a contentious “liquid layout” vs. “fixed layout” debate, but we were a bit surprised to be drawn into the fray based on our (we thought) straightforward implication that the dominant screen resolution of a site’s audience is a valid factor to consider in the design process. Well, it seems that we stepped into a long-running sub-debate concerning the relationship (or non-relationship) between screen width and browser window, or”viewport,” width. Some contend that screen resolution is a phantom indicator because users can shrink or stretch their windows at will, regardless of monitor resolution. Therefore, a liquid, fits-any-sized-window approach is the only one that honors the user’s wishes by adjusting itself based on current window size. It’s a valid argument, but one which flies in the face of the practical realities inherent in accomodating both client and user objectives. If we may quote ourselves:

“The point is that any design makes generalizations about user behavior. A liquid layout is the only approach that would satisfy [the] standard of “fits well in any size window.” And liquid layouts are simply not an option for many sites. Not because they are difficult, but because they don’t satisfy the business objectives of the design in the first place (e.g. multiple large images, required positions for ad units, etc.). Doesn’t the assertion that a fixed width layout prioritizes the Designer over the User leave the client out of the equation? We are certainly designing for the user, not for ourselves, but we try to make sure that the client gets what they need as well.”

Phew… Ok, now we’ll get back to deciding what we think about the new Times template. My first reaction, was: “Dang, that is a big chunk of text.” But let’s take a breath and another look.

NG

This entry was posted on Friday, May 6th, 2005 at 4:36 pm and is filed under Screen Resolution, Diary of a Business Blog.