X-Cart forums

[Tim Glavin]

Hi,

I am using X-Cart 4.3 and as a stock layout the site grows and shrinks dynamically as you change your screen size. I have been searching the forums on how to set a permanent width to the site. 1024px seems to be the current standard for sites now. I also wanted the site to center in the browser.

Does anyone have information on this for X-Cart 4.3?

I also noticed that in the main edit templates that there are CSS files for IE6,IE7 and Firefox. Do you have to set each CSS for each type of browser?

Any help, idea's or suggestions would be great.

Thanks,

[cflsystems]

Several threads in the forum about this. Try setting "page-container" "width:1024px" and "margin:0 auto"

[ARW VISIONS]

there are alt skins also for 4.3 so check there, but yes marin:0 auto;

will get the trick done.

[gizmo]

I thought the big top sites still use between 950 to 960 and not beyond this, Also most top sites still use centred fixed width, is this not the standard?

Correct me if I am wrong (Yep most do browse in 1024, but a lot of users still are below that, and this will cause scrollbars...

Like my daughters tiny notebook, sites that don't accommodate for this audience will be put off.

Just take a look at top sites:
BBC
CNN
SKY
CBS
FACEBOOK

And so on.... I personally never used a fixed of 1024. Not yet anyways.

[ARW VISIONS]

I use between 900 and 980. 1007 will not leave a vert scroll bar at 1024 x 768

[D Brugge]

To expand on what Ashley has said, Yes, 1024 is the most commonly used screen width, but browsers need some of that width for their own "chrome," in the way of a vertical scroll slider.

Also, as wide screens gain popularity, many windows user are opting to put their menu bar on the side instead of the top. This also takes up some of that 1024 real-estate. That is why 950 - 980 pixel wide screens are common, to allow room for the "chrome"

Another option instead of fixed width is to use max-width and min-width. These css properties have not been supported by Internet Explorer in the past, but are supported in IE7 and IE 8. These properties do just as you would expect. They allow you to have flexible layout but with cut-off points. You can say "anything narrower than (min-width: xx px ) will appear as a fixed width with a horizontal scroll bar, and anything wider than (max-width: xx px) will appear as a fixed width with your background filling out the extra space.

[gizmo]

I was just brought up with following the standards and what top sites are using..

Yet to see top sites designers using over 1000 (As fixed width)

[ARW VISIONS]

Min witdth and max widht do work, but sometimes, well most times they make the design look awkward if there is any graphical representation.

Nothing like a nice pic or slide show that is 700 px wide in the midle of a 1600 px wide monitor.

I see this alot on my monitors.

Menus way outside of the middle column design. That's why I prefer fixed width.

Ash

[D Brugge]

I'm sure Tim didn't mean for this thread to turn into a debate on design aesthetics, however IMHO, if a design looks awkward on a monitor, it is not the fault of setting min and max widths, it is the fault of NOT using these setting.

Sure, if all your site has is a static 700 px wide slide show, then it would not make sense to use a flexible layout. But there are times when it is very advantageous to use a liquid, a hybrid, or flexible layouts instead of a fixed width.

For the record, more than half of my designs are fixed width layouts. The rest are hybrids with min and max settings. But every site that I design, I take into account what the screen will look like on different platforms, with different browsers, and at different monitor settings, and design accordingly.

[gizmo]

Well I just replied back with constructive comments, as before my comments,some advice was telling the original poster, to set at what I consider a non web standard fixed width (And added my personal comments so that it would help the user).....

Also I am sure all comments have been some help