- Last post
- 26 Responses
The 1140 grid fits perfectly into a 1280 monitor. On smaller monitors it becomes fluid and adapts to the width of the browser.
no not dead, not in the real world anyway
The hordes of Ipad trolls are rising in the west,
News from the front are bleak,
android tablet users have made an alliance with them,
the fellowship of the 960 pixels is apparently gaining new ground,
what the fuck am I writing
- english, please. lol.akrokdesign
- Oh, georges. You're hung over, aren't you? :DContinuity
- One width to rule them all.elahon
- One does not simply QWOP into Mordorkingsteven
- Ha @ post and notesHombre_Lobo_2
- You do not simply qwop into a 960px grid
- It's grid is FIXED on Rivendellcannonball1978
- ** hits deletes button franticallygeorgesIII
- Sorry, georges, you can't un-say. :DContinuity
This is the approach I've been using for awhile. Scale up to 1280px and down to 1024.
Having said that I don't see any reason the gutters should be variable width. You can easily have fixed width gutter by adding an additional div inside each column.
Another trick I like to use is to have one area remain fixed width while making the rest liquid. You can do this by using the negative margins trick described by A List Apart a few years back.
not yet. maybe next year.
960's got a good year or two left, have to think about the consumer in the end!
@grafisk, akrokdesign - that is exactly why i think 960 fixed is dead. it only satisfies aprx 20-30% of the user/consumer with a 1024 screen.
@toodee - yes, screen resolutions are getting more extreme every day, from iphone (500px) to cinema displays (2500px) and with these extremes, we should not have a use size fits all.
Yes it's fine, not everyone surfs the web in maximized single tasking cunt-o-vision. I have 2 large monitors but my web browser is a medium sized window
With the logic of some of you, books should be two meters wide, because they can.
It's not like 960px is constraining us waiting to make wider websites.
It is good simply because most websites need not to be wider at all.
A website taking up a full screen I can tolerate on a 13" laptop because those screens are low resolution and about the size of a browser window to start with. Going full screen on a large monitor, just because you can, is ridiculous though.
I don't have a big display because I want to show a bigger website, I have one because I don't want the website to fill up the entire display. Hence, 960 is a nice width and should be here for awhile longer. It allows a website to occupy only a 1/2 of my display's real estate while I use the rest for other windows or documents.
Interesting how everyone more or less completely missed the point. He wasn't talking about doing away with 960 width page, just the need for a grid that scales up to a slightly larger size and down to a smaller one.
- so "dead?" was a drama queen-esque overstatement then?TheBlueOne
- "960 grid" was what I readabettertomorrow
- 960 is fixed width, and by the sound of postings, the idea of fixed width web sites is dead. shall a headline have less drama and say 960 grid...to be phased out tomorrow or next year or not at all.somadigital
@abettertomorrow - thank you. apparently only reading the post title is enough, and i guess reading a book by the cover is also acceptable.
i like the site http://www.informationarchitects… and their thinking, but back to the question is fixed dead and is this auto-resizing css idea the best we can design?
960 Grid is clearly not dead, but there is no reason for us to ignore the potential in new solutions to old problems.
For the argument above that PIZZA and doublespaced made (that users with large monitors tend to keep a narrow window) is valid. I think most of us on this site probably fit into this category. However, the 1140 Grid seems to work for this type of user as well as for users who prefer a larger window, or a much smaller one.
I'm going to try this 1140 Grid out for a personal project. Just to see how it works in practice. I can think of no reason to ignore it's potential.
I think it comes right back to knowing your audience and doing your research. If you're designing your portfolio site to show CDs in agencies, you can bet they're running at least 1400 wide, which affords you more space to play.
Conversely, if you're designing an e-commerce site, common sense dictates going for the lowest common denominator, which - these days - tends to be 1024.
This is where the value of looking at a year or two worth of Google Analytics reports really comes in handy to shed some light on trends.
My screen width is 2560px and the best width for it is still 960px. 1140px is not a bad width, but in so many cases it's simply not necessary or may even be ott.
QBN is 990px wide. Would it benefit from going 1140px? How?
Some o f us are tired of having to scroll down to read a couple of posts and can not wait to have really wide monitors, so my entire facebook stream of friend's updates fits on a single line of text.
I'm with somadigital on this one
How are you going to utilize the extra width, again, on this very page? Mockups welcome.
^ I don't think this forum needs extra width, but it wouldn't hurt to make it more scalable. When I make my window narrow, I can't see all the information and there is no option to scroll to the right.
It's my opinion that the people who designed the 1140 Grid are more concerned with scalability than width.