3 ms·

Reading the comments, I guess I am the only guy who still doesn't believe in responsive design in the first place. I just haven't seen a really good implementa

Reading the comments, I guess I am the only guy who still doesn't believe in responsive design in the first place. I just haven't seen a really good implementation of it from a behavior perspective, regardless of what framework or technique is used under the hood. I mean, stacking a three column desktop layout into a single long column for phones is not desirable to me. And, when I view a full desktop site on a phone or tablet with higher resolution (which is where devices are going), it is typically very readable with the browser's auto-sizing to fit. In rare cases, there is always zooming when necessary. But, resolutions across devices will soon be such that supporting at most two different resolution ranges would be all that is required, if that. Even if there are rare cases wherein a specific UI can benefit from desktop space where available, with responsive design you'd be making a conscious decision to build a less desirable experience for mobile and other devices. That would imply a separate site with its own UI, optimized as much as possible for the smaller screens. In this case, why try to do so much with each page? Media queries, extensive markup, etc. are effectively adding big, nasty if statements throughout the code. It is ungainly and hard to maintain, even while delivering a sub-par experience. So, if you really are trying to deliver a remarkably different experience per screen format, then it is better to consider a separate site/page-set, IMO. I think higher resolutions, better browser capabilities, and other changes will make responsive design a "remember when" in the not-too-distant future. And Web designers/devs will breathe a collective sigh of relief, just as we have all done in the past when various painful and short-lived fads went the way of the dinosaur. But again, maybe that's just me!

hawkharris 13y ago
I appreciate your concerns about responsive design, namely the logistical and performance-related issues of creating a separate user experience for mobile devices. I'd like to add that responsive design doesn't have to be an annoying exercise in which developers try to flatten a full-featured site into one column. On the contrary, they can begin by developing a site that works well for mobile, then expand it into a Desktop version. Designing the mobile experience first can be conceptually useful because it helps developers zero in on the features that are most essential. I did this recently while creating a mobile browser-based geocaching app. I would have liked to have created a single version for mobile and Desktop. Device resolutions are improving, as you said, but I knew that my prospective users had iPhones and Androids with relatively small screens. Developing a minimalistic version of my Web app in the beginning helped me to focus and hone in on the most important features. This approach may not work in all cases, but I think it's a useful aspect (maybe a side effect) of responsive design.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  Good points. I probably should have been clear that the one column thing was just an example. I agree that there is certainly more to responsive design than that, else it would be much easier! But, what you mentioned with regard to being more thoughtful about the design and distilling it to its minimalistic essence is partly where I was going, except to a different conclusion. That is, if such a clean, focused design can be achieved, then what results is a Web app that could likely work well across devices. But, if that minimalistic design leaves much to be desired on the desktop (i.e. a remarkably better experience can be delivered because of the additional available real estate, well then we are likely talking about a fundamentally different design. In that case, I say build it out separately vs. trying to have each page, CSS, etc. pull double-duty. >Developing a minimalistic version of my Web app in the beginning helped me to focus [...] it's a useful aspect of responsive design Good point. But, I think that's more a side effect of mobile-first than responsive design.
SkyMarshal 13y ago
Fwiw, I think Quartz nailed it. Simple, clear, and easy to use at every screen size. At smartphone size, the content menu and content pane shift from side-by-side to Z-index stacked or off-canvas. Select an article, and the content menu slides off canvas revealing the content pane with the article. Use the back arrow in the top left to get back to the content menu. I also like how the trend of responsive/mobile-first design focuses developers and designers on content and performance over chrome and whizzbang, reducing information and sensory overload. Microsoft's Metro design language being one of the most developed expressions of those goals. http://qz.com/ http://qz.com/ http://foundation.zurb.com/off-canvas.php http://foundation.zurb.com/off-canvas.php

hawkharris 13y ago

I appreciate your concerns about responsive design, namely the logistical and performance-related issues of creating a separate user experience for mobile devices. I'd like to add that responsive design doesn't have to be an annoying exercise in which developers try to flatten a full-featured site into one column. On the contrary, they can begin by developing a site that works well for mobile, then expand it into a Desktop version. Designing the mobile experience first can be conceptually useful because it helps developers zero in on the features that are most essential. I did this recently while creating a mobile browser-based geocaching app. I would have liked to have created a single version for mobile and Desktop. Device resolutions are improving, as you said, but I knew that my prospective users had iPhones and Androids with relatively small screens. Developing a minimalistic version of my Web app in the beginning helped me to focus and hone in on the most important features. This approach may not work in all cases, but I think it's a useful aspect (maybe a side effect) of responsive design.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
Good points. I probably should have been clear that the one column thing was just an example. I agree that there is certainly more to responsive design than that, else it would be much easier! But, what you mentioned with regard to being more thoughtful about the design and distilling it to its minimalistic essence is partly where I was going, except to a different conclusion. That is, if such a clean, focused design can be achieved, then what results is a Web app that could likely work well across devices. But, if that minimalistic design leaves much to be desired on the desktop (i.e. a remarkably better experience can be delivered because of the additional available real estate, well then we are likely talking about a fundamentally different design. In that case, I say build it out separately vs. trying to have each page, CSS, etc. pull double-duty. >Developing a minimalistic version of my Web app in the beginning helped me to focus [...] it's a useful aspect of responsive design Good point. But, I think that's more a side effect of mobile-first than responsive design.

SkyMarshal 13y ago

Fwiw, I think Quartz nailed it. Simple, clear, and easy to use at every screen size. At smartphone size, the content menu and content pane shift from side-by-side to Z-index stacked or off-canvas. Select an article, and the content menu slides off canvas revealing the content pane with the article. Use the back arrow in the top left to get back to the content menu. I also like how the trend of responsive/mobile-first design focuses developers and designers on content and performance over chrome and whizzbang, reducing information and sensory overload. Microsoft's Metro design language being one of the most developed expressions of those goals. http://qz.com/ http://qz.com/ http://foundation.zurb.com/off-canvas.php http://foundation.zurb.com/off-canvas.php