TheIdeaMan

Add to the list of wide-margin sites the recent www.bju.edu redesign. I agree with what Jakob Nielsen wrote somewhere: it’s no fun to have a wide screen if you can’t fill it up with meaningful content—why should 66% of my browser be blank space?

I suppose the liquid layout may be useful in some instances, but I think I can point out a couple of reasons why the static width site is superior (at least in my opinion) at present.

1. Line length - this is probably the strongest argument for a static width. Apparently, there is a point where the human eye reads most efficiently. See this Maxdesign article for details.
2. Easy coding - It's not easy to code a liquid site using the tableless design strategies that are currently being advocated by those "in the know" on the web. A 750 pixel static width site is as simple as "margin: 0 auto; width: 750px."
3. Easier to manage multiple viewing resolutions - Even in 2005, we've got viewers using an 800x600 resolution. To be able to define a minimum res that you'll support is easier and less prone to errors using a static width site as opposed to something liquid.

Just to be nit-picky Austin, if you've got 800x600 pixels of meaningful content at 1600x1200, you're still going to have 75% blank space. It'll just be easier to read with a static layout. :)

hey, unrelated:

i need to get your prints to you.
email.........

gabe,

1. Line length: No doubt you’re right that there’s an optimum line length for the eye. But liquid layout doesn’t necessarily mean one’s lines of text must span the entire screen. Instead, the wider screen allows room for navigational menus, floating pictures, and multiple columns of text.
2. Easy coding:I’m not sure easier implies “superior” in artistic or technical matters. Besides, there are enough examples out there that the CSS-challenged can just cut and paste.
3. Safer(?):“To be able to define a minimum res that you'll support is easier and less prone to errors using a static width site as opposed to something liquid.”
   Sure you have to accommodate the lowest common denominator, but you don’t have to let it limit you.

“if you've got 800x600 pixels of meaningful content at 1600x1200, you're still going to have 75% blank space”
Again, you’re right that 800x600 pixels of text would look strung-out at 1600x1200. However, it seems that most (non-Flash) sites have pages that are at least a couple of page heights tall—something like 800x1200 pixels of content. So on your 1600x1200 screen you’ll have the same percentage of blank space, but at least you won’t have to scroll. ;-)
I’m thinking in particular of CNN.com, the text of whose articles gets about 250 pixels after being squeezed between navigation and ads, all of which is forced into a width of about 650 pixels. Why?