5 ms·

It doesn't, but if it isn't, then it shouldn't claim to be responsive. Being responsive is nice for usability because then the site can adapt to any screen/win

It doesn't, but if it isn't, then it shouldn't claim to be responsive. Being responsive is nice for usability because then the site can adapt to any screen/window size. However, in my opinion, it is also fine if the site can adapt to the most common screen/window sizes. Right now I see you have two artboards in the illustrator file, one for mobile and one for desktop. I think you should at least have another two for half-desktop and tablet. Widescreen should be considered too but for that you can just center the desktop artboard on the page. I'm not sure what to do regarding zoom though. Ideally it would allow you to change the size of the content while still ensuring the content fits on the page so you don't have to scroll horizontally. However, I don't think that's achievable in this case without making artboards for each zoom level. I guess you could just do zoom and pan?

nulld3v 4y ago
Whoops, for some reason thought you were OP. Please s/you/they.
- AndrewSwift 4y ago
  Sorry, one other point about the term responsive. I get that responsive, in this world, means sending different layouts depending on the client. I'm in a bind: If I say "no Svija's not responsive", people will assume that the content doesn't change size and we'll immediately get written off as not addressing the question. If I say "Svija is responsive" then, as you remark, people say "no, because the content doesn't adapt to the platform". But, Svija adapts to the window: if you want bigger text, make the window bigger or zoom (currently broken, see my other comment). So when someone says "is it responsive, yes or no?", the real answer is: it's different. The main thing I want to emphasize (this is roughly my 20th comment like this) is: We are committed to making accessible content. It's OBVIOUS that a platform that can't offer accessible content can't be a serious alternative to current technology. How exactly we implement it remains to be seen. The first thing is to get some users and establish that the basic premise is interesting.
AndrewSwift 4y ago
(OP here) The user can support whatever screen/window sizes they want, and set increments as they wish. I just do mobile and desktop because I'm mainly doing dev work and want to spend as little time as possible on the site. There is a bug right now where zoom is broken. It did work correctly, and it will work correctly — in general I feel it's important that the browser controls work as expected (one of the big problems Flash had). In our case, the page should adapt to the window unless the window was zoomed — when the window size changes, I have to determine if the user changed the window manually or if he/she simply zoomed. It's quite complicated with Apple's pinch-to-zoom, because that creates a situation where you have two completely different zoom mechanisms that can both be in play at the same time. And, if you zoom then reload the page, the zoom is still in effect. It did work correctly then I recently broke it while fixing a different bug. I'll get it fixed ASAP. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I really appreciate it.

nulld3v 4y ago

Whoops, for some reason thought you were OP. Please s/you/they.

AndrewSwift 4y ago
Sorry, one other point about the term responsive. I get that responsive, in this world, means sending different layouts depending on the client. I'm in a bind: If I say "no Svija's not responsive", people will assume that the content doesn't change size and we'll immediately get written off as not addressing the question. If I say "Svija is responsive" then, as you remark, people say "no, because the content doesn't adapt to the platform". But, Svija adapts to the window: if you want bigger text, make the window bigger or zoom (currently broken, see my other comment). So when someone says "is it responsive, yes or no?", the real answer is: it's different. The main thing I want to emphasize (this is roughly my 20th comment like this) is: We are committed to making accessible content. It's OBVIOUS that a platform that can't offer accessible content can't be a serious alternative to current technology. How exactly we implement it remains to be seen. The first thing is to get some users and establish that the basic premise is interesting.

AndrewSwift 4y ago

(OP here) The user can support whatever screen/window sizes they want, and set increments as they wish. I just do mobile and desktop because I'm mainly doing dev work and want to spend as little time as possible on the site. There is a bug right now where zoom is broken. It did work correctly, and it will work correctly — in general I feel it's important that the browser controls work as expected (one of the big problems Flash had). In our case, the page should adapt to the window unless the window was zoomed — when the window size changes, I have to determine if the user changed the window manually or if he/she simply zoomed. It's quite complicated with Apple's pinch-to-zoom, because that creates a situation where you have two completely different zoom mechanisms that can both be in play at the same time. And, if you zoom then reload the page, the zoom is still in effect. It did work correctly then I recently broke it while fixing a different bug. I'll get it fixed ASAP. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I really appreciate it.