The Case for Fixed Width
I’ve read a fair share of articles detailing liquid layouts, frequently using complex css techniques. However, when it comes to pages I make, I believe that fixed-width layouts are the best way to go for 99.9% of situations. Why?
Firstly, and somewhat selfishly, I say this because fixed-width layouts are easier to work with, giving you the ability to tweak the design to the pixel and have it display consistently. A liquid layout can produce unexpected effects on small screens. Fixed-width layouts display consistantly on small and large screens.
Fixed-width layouts force whitespace on the margins, which is never a bad thing. This isn’t to say that margin whitespace is not possible with liquid layouts, but with Internet Explorer 6’s incomplete support for min-width and max-width properties, fixed-width seems the best way to prevent your 80% wide page from shrinking to unreadable levels on smaller screens. In addition to the aforementioned lack of support for min-width and max-width, fixed-width layouts skirt IE’s strange treatment percentage-based widths and heights.
Another consideration: many users are using larger and larger screens. Therefore, a liquid layout will result in extremely wide columns. And, as any usability specialist will tell you, larger columns become quite difficult to read, especially on monitors that are 22″ or larger.
Of course, liquid layouts will always have their place. Although the average 1024-pixel-wide resolutions display the 900px layouts typical of my and many sites perfectly, smaller-than-average resolutions are still in use by some, and the popularity of the Asus EEE and mobile internet browsers will only increase this proportion. A simple workaround for this is, of course, to include an alternate stylesheet.
What say you?