3 ms·

Try another browser. I'm telling you it is clearly responsive on mine, and the down-votes are others telling you the same. Now if you're just trying to ret-con

Try another browser. I'm telling you it is clearly responsive on mine, and the down-votes are others telling you the same. Now if you're just trying to ret-con the definition of 'responsive design' to grind some personal axe, go do it somewhere relevant.

pwg 8y ago
Actually, I just opened the site in Firefox's "responsive design mode" web-dev tool. The site is responsive up to about 1023 pixels wide, after which it no longer re-flows at all. It just becomes a 1023 pixel wide site inside of a much wider browser window. I think the OP's point was that they wanted the "responsiveness" to not have an upper limit of width. That if (example) they had a 4k monitor that was 2,160 pixels wide, and they maximized the browser window, they wanted the site layout to reflow to use all 2,160 (minus window decorations) of pixel width to lay out content. As it is now, if they had a monitor that wide, the site will only ever use 1,023 pixels of width to lay itself out, leaving large margins of unused space on the sides. [edit]: A bit more research shows this CSS declaration on a <div> with the class of "container": max-width: 964px;. Turning off that one CSS declaration allows the site to widen to fit a maximized browser window.
JdeBP 8y ago
The down-votes are showing you why votes are not equal to truth, because this effect is easily reproducible in Opera, Vivaldi, Chrome, Edge, and Firefox. And it's clearly you who has some axe to grind. I merely point out that the behaviour of the very page itself is not as the article describes the operation of that WWW site. It does not behave as advertised, and does not change to suit the size of my device. The headline remains word-wrapped after the word "should", for example, and huge areas of whitespace open and close around it.

3 ms·

Try another browser. I'm telling you it is clearly responsive on mine, and the down-votes are others telling you the same. Now if you're just trying to ret-con

by ghostly_s 8y ago

pwg 8y ago
Actually, I just opened the site in Firefox's "responsive design mode" web-dev tool. The site is responsive up to about 1023 pixels wide, after which it no longer re-flows at all. It just becomes a 1023 pixel wide site inside of a much wider browser window. I think the OP's point was that they wanted the "responsiveness" to not have an upper limit of width. That if (example) they had a 4k monitor that was 2,160 pixels wide, and they maximized the browser window, they wanted the site layout to reflow to use all 2,160 (minus window decorations) of pixel width to lay out content. As it is now, if they had a monitor that wide, the site will only ever use 1,023 pixels of width to lay itself out, leaving large margins of unused space on the sides. [edit]: A bit more research shows this CSS declaration on a <div> with the class of "container": max-width: 964px;. Turning off that one CSS declaration allows the site to widen to fit a maximized browser window.
JdeBP 8y ago
The down-votes are showing you why votes are not equal to truth, because this effect is easily reproducible in Opera, Vivaldi, Chrome, Edge, and Firefox. And it's clearly you who has some axe to grind. I merely point out that the behaviour of the very page itself is not as the article describes the operation of that WWW site. It does not behave as advertised, and does not change to suit the size of my device. The headline remains word-wrapped after the word "should", for example, and huge areas of whitespace open and close around it.