Just wanted other views on responsive website

 

Responsive or Not?

Nobody can answer that question because the answer depends on so many factors.

What does the client require?

Just wondered if I should start making all sites responsive, there seems to be a few different ways to do it and my minds working over time.

Always responsive.

 

I've never had a client ask for a fixed-width design.

Always responsive.

 

I've never had a client ask for a fixed-width design.

 

I think the important thing would also be to say ...if you can.

 

I'm trying to get my head around responsive designing at the moment, I wouldn't be able to do it for a client yet. So... build it responsive if you can.

I think the important thing would also be to say ...if you can.

 

I'm trying to get my head around responsive designing at the moment, I wouldn't be able to do it for a client yet. So... build it responsive if you can.

 

Ethan Marcotte's book helps. Man's an awesomely talented writer.

just an example

i cant remember what i was looking at on the web, but it was a responsive web page and it did catch my eye, it looked nice...but honestly was put right off the service they were promoting. it was alittle confusing for what it was promoting...

Always responsive.

 

I've never had a client ask for a fixed-width design.

 

Is Responsive and fixed or fluid width not two different things? As a Drupal developer myself I concentrate more on module development, and website development ( I do not make flash websites) theming is something I tend not to get too heavily into and I will be honest here and tend to use contributed themes and adapt them using custom style sheets.

 

After reading the above comment it would be great to get clarification as to the difference between responsive and fixed/fluid layouts:

 

1) Is Responsive not a theme that breaks itself down smoothly across multiple platforms (computer, tablet or mobile)?

 

2) Does a fluid layout automatically resize it's width according to the monitor size

 

3) Fixed is exactly that, fixed regardless of the display (ie, 960px)

I think the important thing would also be to say ...if you can.

 

I'm trying to get my head around responsive designing at the moment, I wouldn't be able to do it for a client yet. So... build it responsive if you can.

 

It's far less complicated than some people make it seem. The biggest hurdles are from the required change of mindset and our accustomed way of working. It has been my experience that building mobile-first (though counter-intuitive at first) is by far the simplest approach. The web is fluid by its very nature, we merely need to stop placing so many constraints upon it when we design.

 

Ethan's book (and his online articles) are definitely recommended reading, though personally I find code to be the best teaching tool. The lights really came on for me when I first looked through Andy Clake's boilerplate, http://stuffandnonsense.co.uk/projects/320andup/

Is Responsive and fixed or fluid width not two different things? As a Drupal developer myself I concentrate more on module development, and website development ( I do not make flash websites) theming is something I tend not to get too heavily into and I will be honest here and tend to use contributed themes and adapt them using custom style sheets.

 

After reading the above comment it would be great to get clarification as to the difference between responsive and fixed/fluid layouts:

 

1) Is Responsive not a theme that breaks itself down smoothly across multiple platforms (computer, tablet or mobile)?

 

2) Does a fluid layout automatically resize it's width according to the monitor size

 

3) Fixed is exactly that, fixed regardless of the display (ie, 960px)

 

Well, this article by Ethan Marcotte kicked off everything http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/ All these techniques already existed in isolation, but Ethan laid out a master plan and put a name to it.

 

According to Ethan, a responsive design must have 3 elements;

1. A fluid grid
   
2. Fluid images
   
3. Media queries
   

And, yes the intention of all this is to create a design that can adapt to the 'container' it finds itself within. That's where the real change is, in the thinking. We used to build designs to suit an arbitrary container (everyone has 1024px now right? A 960px grid will be perfect!). Now we recognise that people consume the web on many different devices this mindset has to change. There is no longer an ideal size to build a site to, better to create one that is device / viewport agnostic.

Just food for thought:

 

Has anyone tried to build a web app responsively? Responsive design is a great theory but when you have a complicated web app, sometimes the amount of interface required just doesn't lend itself well to a responsive design. Even working mobile-first, sometimes the amount of stuff you have to do (whether it's a designer's decision or someone on the business side of things) is too great to gracefully transition between devices. Or, you run into design problems that yield two different solutions for small touch screens and large desktop screens.

 

For brochure-style sites and simpler apps it's easy to translate between various content widths, but I'm still not convinced that, in practice, it's the best solution for complicated applications.

Edited September 20, 201213 yr by porkchops

imo I tend not to worry about mobile devices too much. That is purely based on the analytical data of sites I manage (both for work, and personally).

 

However, the stats I have now will be very different in say 2/5/10 years time, so I agree it is something any aspiring web designer should be learning right now (if they haven't already)

Depending upon the business type.

I don't see why any website should aspire not to be responsive. If there is constraints such as time or the experience of the developer then I can see why it wouldn't be responsive but it shouldn't be something you actively want to do. If possible a website should be responsive and if not possible the developer or studio/company should be taking steps to make future projects responsive.

 

Responsive design in my eyes is thinking about your design and asking, would it work on that screen, in that location, in that situation, with that person and to try and design your site to suit as many as possible of, or the most likely of those answers. It's not easy and you won't get it spot on every time, if ever and it's still a developing idea which has come a long way since Ethan Marcotte sparked it all up but it's definitely worth doing.

..when you have a complicated web app, sometimes the amount of interface required just doesn't lend itself well to a responsive design. Even working mobile-first, sometimes the amount of stuff you have to do (whether it's a designer's decision or someone on the business side of things) is too great to gracefully transition between devices.

 

That scenario is really just a design problem, period. Making a complicated web app usable and accessible will always be a challenge, responsive or not.

 

One of the biggest benefits of a mobile-first approach is that it really forces the designer to consider what is *really* important, and that benefits users at all screen sizes.

 

Just because a larger screen may give you the space to have 12 top-level menu items with 3 sub-levels, and a 'dashboard' of sliders, buttons and toggles does not mean that designing with all those items is a good idea. In fact, the challenge of making such apps responsive has produced some very clever solutions to such design problems; solutions that, by focussing on usability (and the constraints of small screens) have produced excellent user-friendly interfaces. A easily seen example is Facebook, where the vast majority of usage is via mobile devices.

imo I tend not to worry about mobile devices too much.

Uhm, I don't think anyone mentioned mobile devices. It's a big mistake to think that RWD is about mobile devices.

 

Presumably, you also don't worry about users with large screens, the new MBP, tablets, netbooks, games consoles or smart TVs either?

Depending upon the business type.

 

Exactly! There are businesses that don't give a damn about their users, and those that do.

It's far less complicated than some people make it seem. The biggest hurdles are from the required change of mindset and our accustomed way of working. It has been my experience that building mobile-first (though counter-intuitive at first) is by far the simplest approach. The web is fluid by its very nature, we merely need to stop placing so many constraints upon it when we design.

 

Ethan's book (and his online articles) are definitely recommended reading, though personally I find code to be the best teaching tool. The lights really came on for me when I first looked through Andy Clake's boilerplate, http://stuffandnonse...jects/320andup/

 

I've read Responsive Web Design and Mobile First, still trying to get my head around it though. Don't think it's all that simple. Very difficult in fact. I don't think I'll be able to build a responsive site for at least a few years. It's a completely different way of working.

Uhm, I don't think anyone mentioned mobile devices. It's a big mistake to think that RWD is about mobile devices.

 

Presumably, you also don't worry about users with large screens, the new MBP, tablets, netbooks, games consoles or smart TVs either?

 

Oh noes, i said the wrong word...it was late. And to answer you - no, not unless the client is paying for such a feature.

It's a completely different way of working.

Yes, but a far more logical one. And one that quickly becomes second nature.

Oh noes, i said the wrong word...it was late. And to answer you - no, not unless the client is paying for such a feature.

Isn't your client paying you to be a professional web designer? If so, it's your job to keep up with modern standards and practices and to be aware of the repercussions not doing so.

 

Building a website that works on web enabled devices is not really what most people would consider a feature, more of a pre-requisite I would say. Would you build a client a site in Flash because they didn't specify html as a feature? I could expect a lot of unhappy clients if I did that.

 

I build mobile-first, responsive all the time because a) the modern world requires it, and because it is the simplest thing to do (assuming the end result is a website that works on web-enabled devices).

So do you do on site SEO as standard? Do you provide hosting for the client? Do you provide copy for the client? Its all part and parcel of a complete professional website, but that doesnt mean you should do it for free (as standard).

No, because none of those things are integral to good web design.

 

Failure to consider that people no longer consume the web only at a desktop machine on a 1024x768px monitor is simply unprofessional. And designing for the web today, without considering the range of devices a design must perform on, is just painting pretty pictures.

 

Yes, I am passionate about this. I have seen the light! It's easier for me, better for my clients and better for their users; what's not to love?

No, because none of those things are integral to good web design.

 

*From my perspective of course.

 

Great copy is certainly a requirement and something I design around. I never provide content though, as I will never understand my clients business as well as they do. I ask them to provide copy (and then tell them to hire a copy writer!), I design the format to deliver it effectively.

but you are implying a designer is not professional, should they not make a website responsive. A good website is nothing, if its not marketed correctly - as such I consider on site seo as a standard pre-requisite. Why optimize later, when it can be done as and when the site is being built?

 

I do agree with you that designers should consider the platforms the sites will be consumed on, but you cant expect many designers to do responsive as a standard feature. Like wise, the client cant expect all bells and whistles if they are not prepared to pay for such 'features'.

Edited September 21, 201213 yr by jamesosix

Andy Clarke summarises my view succinctly here: http://the-pastry-box-project.net/andy-clarke/2012-january-3/

 

In fact, I'd like to see this put on a t-shirt:

 

"Responsive Web Design is web design, done right."

In my opinion, a website is predominatly for pc's and laptops. I accept that is ever changing, but it has been that way from the get go of the internet. If your site works on that and the client has not paid for a responsive website, then there is nothing wrong with that.

 

If you include it as standard, for free well all the more power to you, but frankly when a basic website from me averages about £200 all in, I aint gonna frig around making it fit to every single screen, tablet, mobile, console or tv..if it works well on most laptops and pc's thats fine imo and It does not make me (or others who agree with me) unprofessional at all. Sadly, you get what you pay for in this world.

Sadly, you get what you pay for in this world.

On this we can agree

 

You wouldn't get much out of me for £200, but it would be certainly be responsive (as this is the default nature of html and has been since the get go). I simply wouldn't have the time to 'frig around' assigning widths to elements

Yes, but a far more logical one. And one that quickly becomes second nature.

 

I'm sure it does, but it's knowing where to start. I'm about to build a new site that would be a great experiment for responsive build but there are so many things I won't have a clue how to do in the new build that would be easy if it weren't responsive. This is my own project, so it's OK. But if I was to say to a client that I had to charge them £x more because it was going to take longer for me to figure it out, most wouldn't be interested.

On this we can agree

 

You wouldn't get much out of me for £200, but it would be certainly be responsive (as this is the default nature of html and has been since the get go). I simply wouldn't have the time to 'frig around' assigning widths to elements

 

Well ultimately the choice as always, lies with the client in question. As with anything there is always a compromise.

 

Not quite sure what you mean on your last point - I cant remember the last time I worried assigning widths to elements, but then I have not done a bespoke website (coding and everything) since the 90s.

I don't see responsive as a feature, I see it as just web design. Obviously it will take time for this idea to be widespread because it is a relatively new concept and people are accustomed to developing for fixed-widths/desktops but it is true, the web is fluid by nature and I think we've always been doing it wrong which feeds in to the Andy Clarke quote.

 

In terms of being in a position to develop responsively, personally I spent ages reading articles and books and looking at different responsive sites along with their code trying to figure it all out. Then I got a project that had to be responsive so I just did it. To put this very simply, what I would do if you were struggling to get your head around it but know the fundamentals from reading up about it; create a few breakpoints using media queries, create a HTML element, give that element a different colour and font-size on each breakpoint and you have a very basic base for a responsive site. Resize you window to something resembling a mobile viewport and go, from there you'll find yourself reading up on bits as you go along.

Not quite sure what you mean on your last point - I cant remember the last time I worried assigning widths to elements, but then I have not done a bespoke website (coding and everything) since the 90s.

Ah, this may be were the difficulty arises. So, you just use an off-the-shelf commercial template?

 

Making a pre-existing, non-responsive template, responsive can be tricky indeed. I build them from scratch, so it is simple.

Edited September 24, 201213 yr by Inspired

But if I was to say to a client that I had to charge them £x more because it was going to take longer for me to figure it out, most wouldn't be interested.

LOL. Of course, but then you didn't pass on the costs of you learning html or css to your client either did you?

 

I think it's crucial in this industry to ensure our skill sets are kept up to date, it is to your benefit. RWD is a no brainer in this respect, as it rapidly becomes the de facto standard. It needs to become a key part of your core skill set.

 

Never stop learning

I don't see responsive as a feature, I see it as just web design.

+100.

 

My sentiments exactly. RWD is no more a feature than 'table-less design' or standards-based markup.