5 ms·

That’s not responsive. That just means scalable. Responsive means that it changes shape depending on size. By your definition any bitmap is “responsive” SVG c

That’s not responsive. That just means scalable. Responsive means that it changes shape depending on size. By your definition any bitmap is “responsive” SVG can’t really be responsive since values are generally declared as attributes. Good luck changing a path via media query. The most responsive SVGs really only hide/show detail depending on size, but they don’t reshuffle unless you literally have both layouts in the SVG.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
The coining of “responsive web design” was a reference to architecture which responds to its present occupants. It’s not about changing shape, it’s about making the same content and experience available regardless of environment. Changing shape or layout is a technique to achieve that, not a defining characteristic. Regarding changing layout in SVG, you just need the `use` tag.
- thitcanh 6y ago
  Again, by your definition, every non-fixed-width HTML page could be called responsive. I don’t think so. Responsive does include other methods as well, but nobody looks at a CSS-less page and calls that responsive because the text always fits the window. That’s just too broad of a definition. The comment I was replying to specifically mentioned that “SVGs are responsive because they resize without additional effort.” That’s blatantly false. “No additional effort” only gives you an SVG that scales (just like images can, and you don’t call images responsive) On review, however, SVGs can be made responsive, it’s just that it’s not easier than regular HTML.
  - emllnd 6y ago
    To nitpick a bit: SVGs don’t scale like bitmaps. An SVG at 800% zoom is radically different than a bitmap at 800%.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    > Again, by your definition, every non-fixed-width HTML page could be called responsive. I don’t think so. > Responsive does include other methods as well, but nobody looks at a CSS-less page and calls that responsive because the text always fits the window. That’s just too broad of a definition. Why? You’re the one making the claim here. The original coining of the term and the author’s 10 year piece certainly talk about other techniques. But not as some formal definition, rather as ways to achieve the original goal: one design which serves all. If the design has the default layout, why would it need to do more? > The comment I was replying to specifically mentioned that “SVGs are responsive because they resize without additional effort.” That’s blatantly false. “No additional effort” only gives you an SVG that scales (just like images can, and you don’t call images responsive) Now this is beyond the pale. Just search “responsive images” and filter for before the picture tag and srcset attribute and you’ll see that this is exactly what was expected. Of course you can do more now, but I don’t think it’s even common practice except when automated by tooling. But more than that, depending on usage, there are ways SVG can scale that raster images can’t. Position and size can scale independently. Images which benefit from it can change aspect ratio without a problem (you can see an example of this on my personal site, link in profile, scaling from very wide to very narrow).

eyelidlessness 6y ago

The coining of “responsive web design” was a reference to architecture which responds to its present occupants. It’s not about changing shape, it’s about making the same content and experience available regardless of environment. Changing shape or layout is a technique to achieve that, not a defining characteristic. Regarding changing layout in SVG, you just need the `use` tag.

thitcanh 6y ago
Again, by your definition, every non-fixed-width HTML page could be called responsive. I don’t think so. Responsive does include other methods as well, but nobody looks at a CSS-less page and calls that responsive because the text always fits the window. That’s just too broad of a definition. The comment I was replying to specifically mentioned that “SVGs are responsive because they resize without additional effort.” That’s blatantly false. “No additional effort” only gives you an SVG that scales (just like images can, and you don’t call images responsive) On review, however, SVGs can be made responsive, it’s just that it’s not easier than regular HTML.
- emllnd 6y ago
  To nitpick a bit: SVGs don’t scale like bitmaps. An SVG at 800% zoom is radically different than a bitmap at 800%.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  > Again, by your definition, every non-fixed-width HTML page could be called responsive. I don’t think so. > Responsive does include other methods as well, but nobody looks at a CSS-less page and calls that responsive because the text always fits the window. That’s just too broad of a definition. Why? You’re the one making the claim here. The original coining of the term and the author’s 10 year piece certainly talk about other techniques. But not as some formal definition, rather as ways to achieve the original goal: one design which serves all. If the design has the default layout, why would it need to do more? > The comment I was replying to specifically mentioned that “SVGs are responsive because they resize without additional effort.” That’s blatantly false. “No additional effort” only gives you an SVG that scales (just like images can, and you don’t call images responsive) Now this is beyond the pale. Just search “responsive images” and filter for before the picture tag and srcset attribute and you’ll see that this is exactly what was expected. Of course you can do more now, but I don’t think it’s even common practice except when automated by tooling. But more than that, depending on usage, there are ways SVG can scale that raster images can’t. Position and size can scale independently. Images which benefit from it can change aspect ratio without a problem (you can see an example of this on my personal site, link in profile, scaling from very wide to very narrow).