3 ms·
One thing I wished the article addressed was the usability of responsive sites vs. dedicated mobile sites. In the majority of cases, I find dedicated mobile si
by misterbwong 14y ago
One thing I wished the article addressed was the usability of responsive sites vs. dedicated mobile sites. In the majority of cases, I find dedicated mobile sites more user friendly on smaller (smartphone-like) devices than most responsive desktop sites.
- jmduke 14y agoThe trade off, is, well, now you need a dedicated mobile site. Subsequent changes to your codebase suddenly require twice the effort, since you're changing two different sites.
- bronson 14y agoNo, every change to a responsive site can break other resolutions/media queries without your knowing. Or do you routinely view your site on an iphone, Android, ipad, Kindle, netbook, laptop, and 30" monitor? You're claiming responsive comes for free, or is no harder than purely non-responsive. Definitely not true.
- mkmcdonald 14y agoI much prefer "responsive" Web pages to "mobile" sites. Many "mobile" sites cram way too many flashy graphics and bloated scripts into the client; compound that with features that disable zooming, and you have a UI disaster. Finally, don't forget URL fragmentation because of the "m.inane.com" nomenclature. "mobile" users then link "desktop" users to the "mobile" site, which is unnecessary. Nonetheless, we're probably both guilty of selection bias.