Im mobile optimising my site with media queries and making it into a 1 column layout. I want the header text at the top to be the full width available while staying on one line.
I guess I could make multiple media queries for different screen widths, each making the text a different size. However is there a smarter and quicker way of doing this?
Thanks
Hmm, this should be tricky. I understand you are referring to text. Depending on the font used in your layouts and the font used by the user-agent, the width of your text may vary from browser to browser.
This also means whenever you change the content of your header, you will have to change the scaling of your font.
Maybe it would be better to use a graphic instead and scale it via width=100%
Otherwise your solution will probably involve some javascript… pretty nasty for a mobile site. :)
Related
I see that a lot of fluid websites use a min-width and max-width property on their web pages designed mainly for desktop. When the browser width is less than min-width, content stops shrinking and the user has to scroll horizontally. I can relate to the rationele behind it. As far as I understand, it basically means that the content is designed so that shrinking its width past this point will make it unusable. It is acceptable, because that page is designed with a minimum width in mind.
But I cannot fully understand the use of max-width property on the main content. These websites usually limit the growth of the content container and center it. Why not let it fill the screen since you are already using percentages instead of pixel values? Web sites like Outlook or Gmail fill the screen whereas a lot like Amazon choose to limit the width and center the content.
It's nothing more than a design decision. Or maybe they were not implemented to support such wide viewports that could make the site to look broken.
In terms of user experience, it can be hard to read text when the lines are too wide so making shorter, leaner paragraphs make sense.
I'm redesigning my site because looks awful on different resolutions (apart devices), most guides and tutorials rely on % and em than fixed values. I'm still learning this so I'm reading everything around.
Thought this would solve the question with different display sizes but again: we have to craft some more CSS for fix some specific issues.
If I need to add media-queries for extra display sizes, why use % then? Do use % really reduce coding? Is ok need to add some extra css for some sizes or am I doing something wrong?
Thanks for any advice!
The purpose of using em sizes is to allow the base your design off of the user's choice of font size. I may use a larger font size because I have a huge monitor and poor eye sight, while someone else might prefer a smaller font. By using em units, your design will accommodate both of our font preferences and resize accordingly instead of forcing the font size to a given standard (eg. "12 point font").
In a similar manner, percent (%) units allow your design to respond to different browser sizes. Used in conjunction with em units, this will allow text-based elements to respond to arbitrary font size choices, and layout elements to respond to arbitrary browser sizes.
It is perfectly acceptable to design a single responsive design for all media types. Media queries are intended when you want different display styles on different devices, not to "support" different display sizes. An example would be to use serif fonts on print media and sans-serif fonts on display media, since usabilities studies have shown that these font faces are preferred for these sorts of media.
Furthermore, it allows you to do custom styling for some situations like mobile devices, where you may want to consider that the user has a limited amount of bandwidth and maybe cut down on extra images. Or if you want to display your content in a completely different layout for the microscopic screen afforded by certain phones.
% allows your site to be responsive to the user's method of viewing. Let's say you have a div that's at 100%. It'll fill the entire section, regardless if it's on a phone or desktop.
It should be okay to add extra CSS for sizes as well. As far as I know, you can have some elements display in % and some with a fixed px value, although they might conflict depending on how the page is setup or what it is being viewed with.
For example.
Your website header have the width of 950px; But in a mobile device, it may fit at 450px;
So, you use media-query to reposition some elements and handle some size issues and set the header width to 450px;
But, if you use % values, you can set your header div to have 100% of width base in its parent. So you can only change the body or some container div width, the all childs going to adapt.
Diana,
I am glad I came across this question. I literally just uploaded my first responsive design which is 90% based off of percentages when it comes to font-size and widths.
Check out the below:
http://www.noxinnovations.com/portfolio/responsive/
Obviously, it doesn't look amazing, and the image looks way out of place... But do me a favor and resize your browser window, by slowly making it smaller and smaller. I did that by setting a percentage width!
Trust me, I tried doing this responsive design test with pixels, and it didn't turn out too well. The percentage width ensures that regardless of the resolution and or pixel dimensions (per se) the design will always cater to the size of the screen. Also, I did not have to use one CSS3 Media Query, but I would highly suggest using CSS3 Media Queries only when you need them.
In my opinion, I should probably have a Media Query for a larger screen.
I hope this helps you as much as it has helped me!
Thank you,
Aaron
I was wondering what are you opinions about when coding css, when/why coding fixed or liquid style sheets?
I agree that fixed size style sheets are easier/faster to code because liquid requires more time in order to have all elements well adapting to their parents.
So, when do you chose liquid over fixed (or vice versa)? Why?
Update 2 I think the best practice now is design a site with responsive and adaptive capabilities for any screen size. Liquid CSS may not have the pitfalls that you would think such as long lines of text (instead the block of text position adjusts on-the-fly) - examples of Responsive Design - browser-side code where pages adapt to any screensize:
http://surrey.ac.uk/
http://bostonglobe.com/
http://thoughtfulweb.co.uk/
Adaptive design: server hosting the site detects browser type that requested the page and serves up appropriate page layouts e.g. mobile. This has pitfalls in that the user agent identifiers aren't always precise - e.g. many browsers include the mozilla string in their id, for example, so it might not always be best to rely on this data.
Previous answer
Liquid layouts (layouts that horizontally shrink or stretch to fit the horizontal width of a window)
Advantages: the content reformats on the fly to fully utilise the
Window width. Which means that the dilemma of choosing the most
popular fixed width e.g. 940px, 960px or 978px is not required. This
is particularly useful for small screen handheld devices which vary
slightly. You have to do less work in considering all possible screen
sizes.
Disadvantages: For the reason that the site will shrink or stretch to
fit horizontally, you cannot control the layout as much as fixed
width. Aesthetics and how nice the site looks will be less under your
control. You may find that my point about having to do less work to support all screen widths is not true after all - as here you are considering scenarios where the screen is really small and your menu navigation is all bunched up and ugly or too far apart on a large screen
Fixed layouts (layouts that are fixed and don't change to fit the available horizontal width).
Advantages: Once you have settled on the most popular width e.g. 940px, 960px etc. you would not need to test the site at different screen widths. The layout is neat and things don't move around, aesthetics, how nice things look remains constant
Disadvantages: Some users with small screens, handhelds may need to scroll horizontally to view your site if your fixed width is larger. Unless you also support a mobile edition too that those users can use
Have a look around at major sites - what are they using. To me it seems fixed widths are more popular, including stackoverflow.com
That said, look at this fluid site: http://derekallard.com/
Here, the developer uses fluid layouts to advantage by using layers of graphics that slide over each other as the site width adjusted in your window.
update: There is no wrong or right answer. Both Have merits. Media folk who have come from television, film and newspaper into web may tend to favour fix widths owing to their familiarity with those media having that.
It's not a matter of technique, it's a matter of decision making.
You choose liquid if you (or the client) WANT liquid.
I myself do NOT WANT liquid. Why? With a very wide window you get very long copy text lines, which are hard to read.
OK there are some other parts you must consider. Is your page intended to be accessible? Then you have to make a sort of liquid layout for the ones which zoom the page.
You could also look for responsive web design. The one that works in mobile browsers, too.
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/
When left with a choice, I rarely use liquid layout in anything except business style web apps.
I.e. for apps where the customer insists on lots of horizontal information in e.g. tables, I'll go with a liquid layout for obvious reasons. For more standard websites, I'll stick with fixed if at all possible.
When I do go liquid for the latter, I'll mostly still enforce a max-width on copy text, because I'm not particularly politically correct, and making the site a joy to read for 99% of visitors is more important to me than making it a (relative) breeze to use for a few - as long as I keep it accessible to those few. Like yunzen says, line length of copy text is very important to both design and readability. Don't let those lines stretch to infinity...
Mostly, my fixed layout sites will have different ways of accomodating the smaller screen size rather than just simple liquid stretching - moving side bars and such beneath the text, and possibly adjusting the copy text width to fit the device viewport. Sometimes, but not always, that requires css media queries.
(see e.g. http://www.quirksmode.org/mobile/viewports2.html)
Usually fixed layouts are easier to design and develop, also visitors are used to this kind of layout.
Fluid layouts need more planning and also do not fit in all kinds of web application. I do not use the fluid approach very often.
The w3c specification says that the width and height are implied and not required. I have always been told that you're supposed to put it in anyway. If I remember correctly his reason was that the browser may not correctly detect the image size. Is this true?
It harkens back to the dark days of Netscape in the v4 and older versions. The rendering engines were primitive and wouldn't "reflow" content as they built pages and figured out sizes. If you didn't specify an image size, the whole page's rendering would get paused (or a full-page refresh would get pulled) once the image was downloaded and parsed for height/width. This looked bad from a user perspective, so the rule was to ALWAYS specify a size.
Nowadays, engines are better, and can handle an unspecified image size gracefully. Reflowing content is still a somewhat expensive operation, but does look cool from a user perspective as things glide/flow around as images pop in and text shifts to accomodate them.
The reason is that if you do not put them in, the browser will put a default size in, download the image, find the actual size then have to re-flow everything around the new size.
Re-flows are expensive operations - the rendering on screen has to be updated for each such image.
If you provide the size, the browser puts in a placeholder with the correct size and doesn't have to re-flow once the image downloads.
In my experience, not supplying width and height tags will cause the browser to render the image at its original size.
I've found this behaviour to be consistent in modern browsers.
As an aside, I always try to supply images at the size I want them rendered at in order to reduce the amount of bandwidth used and to ensure image quality.
I'm not sure about browsers not detecting it correctly, I've never seen that happen.
But to answer your question, I think the answer depends more on what you are trying to do, and possibly likely to do, which makes the difference.
For example, if the image you are adding is a banner ad which needs to conform to predetermined height/width, then by all means, hard code the height and width.
But if the image is something that might change over time, I would suggest NOT coding the height and width, as more than likely this means that the new image, if not the same exact height/width as the old one, will now be distorted. This is especially true on a dynamic website where images change all the time.
Shouldn't we use "Pixel" for anything in CSS if we are making a site for mobile devices?
px for layout and font. Should we only use em or % for everything on mobile sites?
and if i'm using <img> then should i defined height and width for <img> in HTML code? or it's good to not to define. or i should define size in css for <img> also in % or em
Edit:
Note: Question is not again about px vs em debate My question is specifically for separate mobile site. when we are making separate mobile site with different domain or sub-domain.
Everything depends on the context. Like with CSS for desktop browsers, there are situations where using pixels is not a good idea (for example mostly for font sizes), and there are situations where pixels are still very useful (for example fixed layout).
In general, avoid using pixels every-time you don't need to. For example, there is no reason to do it for fonts: it's not you, but the user who chooses if the font must be big on a high-res screen or not. Using percentages also helps you somehow to remember that a piece of text can never have an exact width and height, and force you to adapt your design.
Now, sometimes, for cost or other reasons, you have to do fixed layouts, or at least some parts of a page, associating images and text, have to be fixed in size. In this case, there is nothing wrong to use pixels. If I have a <div/> with some text inside and a pretty 200×100px background, the most obvious thing is to set the width and the height of this <div/> to 200 and 100 pixels.
if i'm using <img> then should i defined height and width for <img> in HTML code?
IMHO, you never should do that. The size of an image is purely a layout/design thing, so it has nothing to do with HTML, but with CSS.
Do you have to specify the size of an image in CSS? If you want your image to be displayed 100%, than no, you don't have to: this is by default in every browser. If you want to scale it down and, for some reasons, you can't scale the image itself than save the scaled image on server, than yes, you may want to specify the size of the image.
Remember than sending a big image and scale is down on client side is always a bad idea. The visual quality might be affected, and the client will have to wait more to see the image appear.
Actually, I recommend using different CSS files (and sometimes different templates) for browsers vs. mobile. Mobile isn't just a smaller browser, it is a fundamentally different user experience.
As for the pixel issue, I tend to use pixels in my base CSS rules and then use % or em's everywhere else so that things scale up and down together. It doesn't always work the way I would like, but it normally allows a lot of tweaking during development.