Wrong.<p>wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong.<p>A rebuttal -<p>1. It Defeats User Expectation<p>This only holds true if A: your user has never seen a mobile site before (and if they are on a phone thats true for about ~0.5s), or B: if your responsive design is poorly implemented. A well designed site will be intuitive.<p>2 - It Costs More and Takes Longer<p>Let's assume that you have customers that will use your site on a non desktop device. If that is the case - you are making users use the wrong tool for the job. A site that takes advantage of the desktop experience will not work as well on mobile. Creating a tailored experience for them will absolutely increase conversion (if your site converts anyone to anything), and at the very least, reduce frustration and eye strain. I can't speak for everyone, but the month or two of part time work it took one of my jobs to add a mobile site was paid for by the increase in sales not too much long after. Not only that, but its now built in. When the kindle fire was released, we saw great numbers on that device. Why? because the responsive design was well done and fit that device's screen great. Saying that it 'costs more' is incredibly short sighted.<p>3.Non-Responsive Designs Usually Work<p>'working' doesn't mean it can't work better.
all text websites work, too. But we use images because they enhance the experience.<p>4. There is Often No Load Time Benefit
All this is saying is that a lot of sites are done badly. This has nothing to do with the style of responsive design in general. Tools like Modernizr allow you to optionally load a number of resources that would otherwise not load.<p>5. It’s a Compromise
Of course? All design is compromise. The goal is to make the compromise in the favor of the customer.<p>Responsive design is not a silver bullet, and not always a good idea, depending on the site - but this article is /really
/ weak.
Biggest proof that this article is wrong? I'm on my phone reading the blog post and the site doesn't scale for my screen width and it is so annoying to read because I have to keep scrolling left and right to see all of the text. I got so frustrated I didnt even continue reading the article and I left the site. That is what will happen with users when a site doesn't display properly for their device, it's a fact.
"I am a fan of responsive (or alternative) design in certain situations – for example, when dealing with a web application whose desktop design could not practically be contained within a mobile device’s screen."<p>That's the whole idea.
I just hate not having a choice. So many sites now make it impossible to see the non-mobile version, unless you have a browser that lets you fake the User-Agent, and mobile Safari isn't one of those.<p>This is exceptionally irritating when the browser is more than capable of displaying the full site properly, and the mobile site doesn't have all the features of the regular site.<p>Continuing a bit off topic on my rant, another terrible UX is finding an article you want to read in a search, tapping the link, and finding out that article <i>isn't available</i> in the mobile site, and simultaneously not giving an option for the full site. Taking it even further, some sites force you to download the <i>mobile app</i>, and only then do you find out the article isn't available in that app! I'm going to stop now - I'm getting so mad just thinking about it.
Personally, I <i>do not</i> want to see a sidebar, taking up a third of the screen, on my smartphone. I find the example that he considers fine quite unusable and would not read that on a smartphone.
Didn't I read somewhere that Steve Jobs was against mobile versions of websites saying that the iPhone was designed to display the same website that you see on your computer?<p>I know that as a consumer, I get annoyed when a mobile version of a site comes up and the first thing I do is check for the "Desktop Site" link. I just don't trust that the developer has included everything in the mobile site that the desktop site includes.<p>A well designed site will look and act great on a desktop, iOS device and Android device without extra work.
A surprising (or unsurprising perhaps) number of negative responses to this article. I do see why people are so generally defensive of responsive design, I mean it just seems like the right thing to do, it fits with what we wish the commonly accepted wisdom should be.<p>That said, building anything more interactive than a blog layout with it is actually very <i>hard</i>. It is time consuming, there is tedious work to do to tweak for each individual mobile browser quirk, and it may not be the best thing for a startup to invest time in. "Mobile first" certainly sounds nice, but "desktop first" is probably a faster more efficient route to product-market fit.<p>So I'd just recommend caution in how strongly we parrot "responsive/adaptive all the things" as common wisdom without discussing the possible downsides. It isn't black and white.
Preface by saying responsive design _can_ be worth it.<p>That said: If your mobile phone has so much trouble displaying a 960px width static centered website (the norm on the current web), so much so, that your mobile browser demands a different design, then I posit your design isn't broken, some mobile browsers are broken.<p>I expect that in the near future, when resolutions get upped and mobile browsing experiences advance, responsive design becomes more and more unnecessary. To me responsive design for mobile devices seems more of a band-aid for less capable devices. Less capable devices with post-stamp sized browsers, we will soon drop in the same pile as IE6 -- Because soon we can expect any browser on any device to be able to display a 960px width static centered design just fine, without responsive design. If responsive designs stays necessary, to me it would mean the failure of mobile hardware and software manufacturers.
The basic problem with this post is that it contains zero data about user engagement. One guy can project his own opinion about how he thinks his non-responsive site looks fine on mobile, so clearly everyone else will too, while I can project my own personal experience that I tend to find myself spending more time reading mobile-optimized blogs on my phone, so clearly everyone else will too.<p>It's been said a million times around these parts, but I guess I get to be the one to say it here: Get some data! Do some A/B testing! Check your bounces and pages per visits and time on site from mobile devices, then try a responsive design and see if they improve (technically, you should split and do both at the same time). What works for one site may not work for another. But projecting generalized statements with no data to back them up doesn't move anyone forward.
Simply put, Responsive design is only worth it if you do it correctly. Just because your site scales with browser dimensions does not mean that it scales with user expectations. There are a few rules to follow:<p>1) Test on as many devices as possible, even if you are using a tested framework. Your design is going to be different that what the framework author(s) have done.<p>2) Be agile and responsive to your users. Just because your responsive design is amazing doesn't mean that the user experience will match.<p>3) Catalog your "must have" features, such as search and navigation. Make sure that these "must haves" are present and accessible across all your designs. Loosing navigation on mobile means dead ends for your users.<p>4) Related to #3, keep your experience consistent across your devices. Perhaps mobile users do need a different site, but don't loose the core purpose of the site. Mobile shopping carts need to function as similar as possible to their non-mobile versions.<p>5) Responsive !== Mobile (sometimes). Just because the design scales with browser size doesn't mean it's ready for mobile.<p>6) Use a framework whenever possible. I don't care how smart you are, it's smarter to use a tested framework at least once. Even if this means that you eventually build your own, it will give you an idea of the conventions to follow.<p>7) Frameworks are awesome, but none are launch ready out of the box.<p>8) Find your dimension breakpoints, and what they'll do to your design. Don't go too crazy though, you don't need to design for every conceivable screen dimension.
This article lost me the moment he quoted wikipedia to explain responsive design. This is not 8th grade, come up with your own definition if you're such an expert.<p>The rest of article was downhill too. Claiming the full site looks fine on your iPhone is akin to saying "It works on my machine!".<p>It's pretty much a waste of time from top to bottom.
Yeah as a full-time frontend developer this article doesn't hold much water. Responsive designs are a quick and relatively cheap way to get a mobile compatible site going. It help decrease bounce rates and increase conversions as well.
The author fails to take into consideration tablets, e-readers, smart TVs and every other device, currently available or in the distant future, that will have a web browser.<p>"It Defeats User Expectation"<p>So let's keep everything exactly the same?<p>Responsive design to me is progress, eventually we'll either come up with good practices for working with it or maybe something else will take it's place. The way we access the internet is in constant flux and the 960 magazine layout has many pit falls in terms of usability outside of desktop sized screens.
As a web developer, I find that implementing a responsive design to be a fairly and rewarding task. I think it is worth the efforts given the screen variances of web-enabled devices. However, not all websites/services are fit for a responsive model. Something like a Google Maps or gmail will benefit more from a separate mobile site. While a Hacker News could easily go responsive.
This feels like it's arguing for limitations, and i'm never a fan of that.<p>The argument that responsive design is not worth it, because some people do bad responsive design (or even most do bad responsive design) is pretty odd. To carry that same sort of argument out into anything in life would land you in serious life lessons.<p>Yes, responsive design takes more time (no matter how you slice it). And, yes, sometimes it's not needed. Those should just be obvious to any developer worth their salt. Like everything considered when developing a website - weigh it all, figure out what's best for the project and it's users. Most definitely - time/money will be a factor in those considerations sometimes.<p>All I can think is the writer of this article hasn't seen how powerful responsive design can be?
I too am having lots of doubts on responsive design. I've yet to see an example of a significantly popular and non-trivial website implement responsive in a convincing way.<p>Anyone arguing that "they're just doing a <i>bad</i> responsive design" I think it missing the point. Responsive almost means it has to be bad in some way, because it is a compromise of design between 2 very different devices, not just in screen size but in use cases.<p>The "right" approach, is the same thing we've been taught for 50 years, separating code from presentation. Building a robust API for your backend data makes the front-end presentation much easier and cheaper, so you can afford to make front-ends tailored for whatever you need.
I have to seriously disagree with the 1st point.<p>Give me a usable website over one that "meets my expectations", dammit! As much as I like the desktop version of let's say www.theverge.com, I can honestly say it wouldn't work on a mobile at all. It would be too cluttered, and the links too small to tap.<p>On a side note, is there a mobile version of Hacker News out there?
Link bait and wrong on every point. This article is a waste of time to read.<p>On each point...<p>1. Where's the proof? Where's the research? The usability studies? The group surveys? There is NO evidence presented to support this point. It's just opinion and conjecture. Moving on.<p>2. Any actual numbers on ROI or expected ROI? Nope. Moving on again.<p>3. Again, any usability studies to back this up? No. Next!<p>4. Research? Numbers? Proof? Nope. And on to the last...<p>5. It's not a subjective decision when designers use things like evidence (something you obviously know nothing about) based on usability research and studies.<p>I have no problem with people speaking out against something (though the comment that there is a lack of arguments against responsive is a joke - there's probably just as many articles against as their are for due to link bait like this), but when you do argue against something, you need to present proof that shows you're right.
The author raises a good point about page load times not really being minimized and lack of thought around good responsive design. However, I'm unconvinced about the rest of the arguments.<p>For example, he notes "The first rule in usability 101 is to give the end user what they expect." Maybe for the first year or two in the smartphone era it might have been acceptable to simply provide a shrunken zoomed out version of the site. The onus would have been on the user to navigate appropriately. Which... is a lot of work. My (swiftly getting older) eyes appreciate the larger fonts and readability that in theory a responsive design provides. I now expect to be able to read am article in portrait mode with a decent font size without having to zoom in and out. Maybe I'm alone but I would not be surprised if more users expect this now.
Interesting read. It's fun to hear the other side of the argument. I don't really agree. Some of these arguments could be applied to all mobile sites, not just responsive sites. If that's the case, we've debated the value of mobile sites for years and mobile sites have clearly won.<p>1. It Defeats User Expectation — This is not a fault of responsive design, but rather the designer. We need more, skilled responsive designers. A responsive site should act and feel like a regular mobile site.<p>2. It Costs More and Takes Longer — A mobile site usually requires two separate code bases. With a responsive site, you can maintain both the desktop and mobile experiences from the same place. Also, a good responsive designer is cheaper than a desktop and mobile designer. If it's costing more, you're doing it wrong.<p>3. Non-Responsive Designs Usually Work — This isn't specifically targeted at responsive design, but rather all mobile websites. By your logic, any mobile site is subpar. While I think you should always include a link to the desktop version (which can be easily achieved by switching out the stylesheet), I don't think desktop sites are superior. A desktop view might be appealing to a small percentage of power users, but the majority of users will appreciate a tailored experience. Just don't hide functionality. You should be able to accomplish the same tasks on mobile that can be achieved on the desktop.<p>4. There is Often No Load Time Benefit — You're doing it wrong. A good responsive design will have a much lighter weight than a desktop version. There is no reason a responsive site can't function in the same manner and achieve the same performance as a mobile website.<p>5. It’s a Compromise — Again, this is a power user issue. Always offer the option to view the desktop version.<p>It is silly to argue against mobile design. Screen real-estate is more valuable on a mobile device and our designs should reflect that. If your argument is responsive design doesn't offer performance benefits, than you probably need to reconsider your workflow and RWD structure.
This reads like someone's justification for their own lack-of-talent with media queries and CSS, or their laziness toward creating an optimized experience for all users.<p>"Responsive" is a trendy buzzword thing for what solid digital designers have been doing ever since Netscape 0.9b tossed alignment into the image tag (among other things)... paying attention to how a design looks on multiple screens. We just have more screens and means by which to optimize for those screens now.<p>And I'm really not sold on "mobile first" either -- feels like another short-lived trendy buzzword thing. Scaling a mobile design concept up to the desktop is shorting your 1024w and up users. Designers who care think about all screens at a design's inception... then plan the CSS accordingly.
I AGREE. Responsive design is only NECESSARY 1% of the time, and is poorly implemented 99% of the time. Most modern mobile devices can show full desktop site scaled down, with pinch-to-zoom functionality. Personally, I get annoyed with "mobile pages" and responsive layouts.
We used responsive design for the library discovery interface we produce, our UX chap did a nice presentation about the process (and why we chose a responsive web app, rather than a native app): <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/Shuckle/retrofitting-adaptive-designs" rel="nofollow">http://www.slideshare.net/Shuckle/retrofitting-adaptive-desi...</a> <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/Shuckle/web-app-and-responsive-design-for-libraries" rel="nofollow">http://www.slideshare.net/Shuckle/web-app-and-responsive-des...</a><p>Well received by customers and end users. We started bottom up, rather than top down, so decided what was important and hid or removed the rest.
It does cost more, it does take longer, but it is basically worth it if only because you are delivering a better user experience on every device. That is the point of responsive design.<p>Also, to that end, a good responsive design is not going to destroy your ability to navigate the page. It should make it easier.<p>The hard part of responsive design is dealing with pages that don't always have the same layout. It is a lot of manual tweaking and better tools and frameworks are needed to make responsive design faster, easier, cheaper. It's still largely a new technique.<p>But, after being knee deep in a responsive site redesign from the ground up, it's totally worth it for the end user.
Responsive Design doesn't have to be a pain if you just do a little bit of thought, research and planning, and a little bit know and care about your craft. Let the content inform the design, and plan from the start for flexible designs.<p>It is going to get a LOT easier when I'm done with the next revision of Edit Room... Designing to multiple custom breakpoints is amazing... [1]<p>Going responsive and flexible does involve a leap of faith, and articles like this one are from folks who have not yet taken it.<p>[Edit Room is fast, flexible design prototyping and css animation.](<a href="http://www.edit-room.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.edit-room.com</a>)
His arguments are poor. These are the two most egregious.<p>(1) It Costs More and Takes Longer. Yes, designing something additional takes longer; however, if he compared the time required to add responsive code to the time it would take to setup mobile detect and an alternate theme, than this point may have some more sense even though I'd still side with responsive code.<p>(2) Non-Responsive Designs Usually Work. No. That's why we're having the discussion. If regular designs worked, there would not be a need.<p>This is a problem that a lot of companies struggle with. It's fine to criticize responsive design, but bring something to the table.
I actually agree with the juxt of what he is saying, though the article could have been better, maybe with a more in depth analysis of user experiences, examples and actual data.<p>If you have a modern mobile browser and if the site itself does not meet any special mobile criteria/demographic/call-to-action, let's be honest this is the vast majority, then the default experience actually trumps the responsive one.<p>ps. I say this having a mildly popular responsive framework on github, and I don't care because I often prefer non responsive BUT well build sites in the default view on mobile.
Like the author says, I would argue that it depends on the experience. The first thing to determine is: what is the core experience you're going after. For example, if you're an e-commerce website and your visitors expect to be able to find things, follow things, and then buy things, a mobile website that leaves out key functionality is frustrating.<p>There have been many a time that I've searched desperately for the "desktop version" of the site because I need to do something that the mobile version doesn't allow me to.
I wrote a fairly elaborate newsletter regarding the lessons I learned from responsive design. There are no absolutes when it comes to this. The decision varies from site to site.<p>If you believe that all websites should be responsive, then please read my newsletter. How my revenues went from $25k to $19k / month average when we redesigned and went responsive. How changing it back has now boosted the revenues even higher than before.<p><a href="http://eepurl.com/przMX" rel="nofollow">http://eepurl.com/przMX</a>
A lot of this article seems to be making the point, "My iPhone handles non-responsive websites well." Which is cool <i>for your iPhone</i>. My Kindle 2 is not as good at it.<p>There's progress to be made on both sides of the problem: websites adjusting to devices, and devices handling websites that don't adjust. That iPhone is good at the second half of that is cool and all, but I think it would be a big mistake to base your whole website's mobile strategy on just iPhone.
I can only assume that this was written by a developer who does not really use their mobile device to browse the web much, if at all. In 2008 I was "developing" for mobile web, but not actually <i>using</i> mobile web, and would have agreed with all of the OP's points. As I started to actually become a user, the benefits of responsive design became quite obvious.
This article seems way off in so many different aspects, especially the example where they keep the sidebar beside the text on the mobile version and say it is better.<p>I understand the point of view that responsive isn't the answer to everything, but saying that dekstop versions of sites 'work' couldn't be more wrong in terms of just about everything.
Terrible article. The problem with it is that you effectively explained why <i>typical</i> responsive design (specifically) is not worth it. The older you get, the more accustomed you become to expecting everything the same way. Accept change! There is nothing wrong with it!
I was going to read this article, but since I'm using an iPhone and your article isn't responsive.... I didn't read it. Responsive is about capturing your audience. This article is the perfect example of why you should do responsive.
This is an opinion. People are allowed to have them. The article may make points that some (many) don't agree with, but that doesn't make them not valid. That said, the title of the article inflates the argument.. just a tad.
Ironically, that scrolling social media box on the side was covering some of the text while reading this on my galaxy s, leaving me wishing you had implemented some kind of responsive design.
I couldn't disagree more.<p>Most importantly, I'm not sure it is safe to say users expect an IDENTICAL experience (experience being the most important word) on their mobile as they got from their desktop.
I feel like it isn't worth it but for a slightly different reason.<p>Responsive design isn't designed from the ground up specifically for mobile. In a mobile first world, that makes the difference.
Data or it didn't happen. There is 0 data to back up any of these points. If you're basing your design decisions on generalizations in 2012, you're doing it wrong.
Using only simple blogs to prove responsive design is unnecessary is like using only nails to prove that powertools are unnecessary and all you need is a hammer...