4 ms·

I fucking hate the term "responsive design" because in reality nothing is "responsive". A shitty fixed 980px site will still look like crap on 1080p 24'' monit

I fucking hate the term "responsive design" because in reality nothing is "responsive". A shitty fixed 980px site will still look like crap on 1080p 24'' monitor. Calling it responsive just because the navigation menu is moved above the content when viewing it from the phone doesn't make it "responsive".

lmm 14y ago
You know what's really responsive? Proportional width, aka the default. HN is great and usable on my 27" desktop monitor or my 4" phone screen. Less design is more.
- beaumartinez 14y ago
  If you call "having to zoom in to make the text even readable" great and usable, then yes, HN is "responsive".
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >You know what's really responsive? Proportional width, aka the default. Yes. >HN is great and usable No. HN is not the default, it uses both pixel and point dimensions, and makes unreasonable assumptions about them. If HN used ems or exs then it would be usable.
jordanmoore_ 14y ago
Not if you use media queries that look for resolution and pixel density to make appropriate adjustments. It all comes down to the implementation. Your example is a generalisation sir. I can give you plenty of fine examples of responsive web design where it's more than "moving a menu". It's all in the implementation and the implementer.