Liquid vs. fixed website widths (and content)
I’ve been a long-time advocate for fixed-width websites for usability purposes. Humans optimally read when lines have fewer than 14 words on average because the reader can easily find the following line of text. Liquid widths, on the other hand, stretch the content, thus slowing down reading time for most humans.
Engadget — the largest blog on the internet — just updated their site to not only include liquid width for text, but for images as well (resize your browser window and notice how the image scales along with the text using CSS). While I like the effect and have developed sites that store a user preference of either fixed or liquid (see this one for example), I’m still not sold on using liquid widths when reading is involved.
Do you like liquid or fixed-width websites? When would you prefer one over the other?
3 Comments
From a usability standpoint, fixed width is better because eyetracking device often records that people quickly scan down a page, not across. I like fixed width better. I don’t know if it’s just because I’m used to it online, though. I don’t think that’s really the case, though. Lines that are too long make you lose your place, but lines that are too short make for super long pages. There’s a fine line, really. I think Blogger does a pretty good job of it.
Most of the time fixed…
I think fixed works better most of the time for content sites and liquid for interface sites. Can you imagine if Gmail was fixed width?
Sometimes, content sites with an extreme amount of content are better off being liquid.
But hey that’s just my two cents. 🙂
I have been contemplating the same thing for my website. It is curently optimized for 800px wide screen using a max size of 760px … but I have been thinking about making it into an elastic or liquid layout. I was hoping your blog would give me some insight as to which to go with!