I've never heard this distinction between adaptive and responsive. The article claims that responsive layouts are series of liquid layouts while adaptive layouts are series of static layouts. I was under the impression that "responsive" refers to all usage of media queries to swap layouts, and it just so happens that most of the time liquid layouts are used.
It's nice... and also very wrong, if you take the initial definition of adaptive web design!<p>Adaptive web design as introduced by Aaron Gustafson in the "Adaptive Web Design" book has little to do with layout design, and everything to do with progressive enhancement and adapting the website's behavior to the browser's abilities (geolocation, ...)<p>But I guess, most people didn't read the book, and now everyone has their own definition for it, so in effect, it doesn't mean much anymore; some say it's non-fluid RWD (like here), some say it's server-side components (like most people), some say it's exactly the same as RWD... oh well, pick your favorite!
I had this idea about using a "utility" function to represent how useful a given amount of screen space is to each widget, and then choosing the layout that maximizes the sum of the utility functions. It hasn't gained any traction, and I haven't had time to implement it myself.<p>See <a href="http://gtk.10911.n7.nabble.com/Idea-for-automatic-widget-layout-td59448.html" rel="nofollow">http://gtk.10911.n7.nabble.com/Idea-for-automatic-widget-lay...</a> for more details.
Did this site really deserve its own domain? We (as the internet) really ended up misusing the domain system and the only one benefiting from it are those selling domains.