Table Width Question...

Thanks to all who have responded to my request for compliance help. In that
thread, a suggestion was made to base my table width on percentage rather
than pixels. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is often better to
set an exact width....I'm using 750 pixels.

Would appreciate others' thoughts on this. My greatest concern is that many
of the pages on my sites include a lot of text...articles and such. I don't
want them to spread to wide as it makes it more difficult to read. As an
example, see http://www.lanebaldwin.com/destress.htm

As always, thanks for all the help.

Lane

Lane Baldwin wrote:

Thanks to all who have responded to my request for compliance help. In that
thread, a suggestion was made to base my table width on percentage rather
than pixels. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is often better to
set an exact width....I'm using 750 pixels.

Neither one is better. Its a matter of personal choice. The design of
the site plays an important role in deciding which to use. Obviously if
you only have a two column design it is probably going to be better to
set a fixed width. This will stop the text line length becoming
difficult to read as the browsers viewport is widened. If on the other
hand you have a design of three/four columns then a flexible design can
work very well.

Would appreciate others' thoughts on this. My greatest concern is that many
of the pages on my sites include a lot of text...articles and such. I don't
want them to spread to wide as it makes it more difficult to read. As an
example, see http://www.lanebaldwin.com/destress.htm

I think you have probably chosen the right decision to go with a fixed
width design in your particular case. On a wider screen the center
column, if flexible, would stretch to make it difficukt to read.

However I dont know many people who surf around with a maximum width
browser. I keep mine to around about 730-750 px wide.

Comments below...
"Osgood" <notavailable (AT) atthisaddress (DOT) com> wrote

Lane Baldwin wrote:

Thanks to all who have responded to my request for compliance help. In
that
thread, a suggestion was made to base my table width on percentage
rather
than pixels. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is often
better to
set an exact width....I'm using 750 pixels.

Neither one is better. Its a matter of personal choice. The design of
the site plays an important role in deciding which to use. Obviously if
you only have a two column design it is probably going to be better to
set a fixed width. This will stop the text line length becoming
difficult to read as the browsers viewport is widened. If on the other
hand you have a design of three/four columns then a flexible design can
work very well.


Would appreciate others' thoughts on this. My greatest concern is that
many
of the pages on my sites include a lot of text...articles and such. I
don't
want them to spread to wide as it makes it more difficult to read. As an
example, see http://www.lanebaldwin.com/destress.htm

I think you have probably chosen the right decision to go with a fixed
width design in your particular case. On a wider screen the center
column, if flexible, would stretch to make it difficukt to read.

However I dont know many people who surf around with a maximum width
browser. I keep mine to around about 730-750 px wide.

Thanks for the insight, Osgood. I've found that doing 750 px width has
worked for me. But, just recently, another designer with whom I'm working on
a new site, kind of took a swipe at me by commenting to the client that I
was obviously inexperienced because I didn't use flexible width. this from
someone who is still on a 13" screen! One thought I had was to do a flexible
width for a three column layout but then put a nested table in the center
column that would be fixed so that the text lines didn't get too long when
the main table was expanded. Seems that it might be a decent compromise.

Again, thanks for your input!

Lane