> Can't you do both if you want? Use a design like the one on Liam on Linux' site and make it responsive (where necessary). Actually ... this site is already r

> Can't you do both if you want? Use a design like the one on Liam on Linux' site and make it responsive (where necessary). Actually ... this site is already responsive enough imo. You can't both enforce a very specific aspect ratio and dimensions and be responsive with any semblance of practicality. The reason the magazine page can look good is because the person designing it knows exactly the size of all the elements, the aspect ratio and dimensions of the page it's being printed to. All of the graphics are placed intentionally, and all of the type is set intentionally to exactly where they want it to be and how they want it to look, with of course the constraint of the content dictating what that will be. On a webpage you're just doing a lot of guessing of what the viewport might look like for users. You probably could, through media queries, determine if a person's viewport is exactly right for your one desired layout and only show it if that's the case, but that'd be a waste of resources. You could also enforce the layout you want in your css by setting things by pixels and then you'll be sure that it looks exactly as you intend... except then it isn't responsive. So hypothetically, yes, you could still have it be responsive, but there's just no point, is there, if only the people that happen to meet your very specific requirements ever see it? That's why good web design is hard and why it's become, in my opinion, kind of boring in terms of layout design. You have to account for all those different devices looking at it and try to make it look as nice as possible while still being useable.