directonpc:

A responsive site isn't mobile friendly since it can't cater for low end mobile devices... Google launched Google plus in the Era of modern smartphones but believe me even Nokia 3110 will access G+ wella

romme2u:


it seems u are not abreast of current techniques and development in the web world.

i advised u previously to googled up adaptive design and lazy loading.

ok add this to ur lesson; graceful degradation and progressive enhancement. mind u this are techniques that have existed for ages.


incase u forgot where u were and where u are heading to: RWD is an attempt to cover as much computing devices as possible with varying screen size including those low end mobile devices even nokia 3310 and just introduce digital smart wristwatch. as long as that device can run a web browser.

it seems ur point is hanging on poor network connectivity, which is the inability of those device to download heavy web content that are meant for high end devices. i can assured u that network speed of today is far ahead of what was obtained in 2010.

directonpc:
I have seen a lot of webmasters on Nairaland over hyping responsive web design.
I am going to state 3 reasons why responsive design sucks and why you should take the stress of designing mobile versions of your site.

1. Responsive sites load slow on mobile and consumes users data(megabytes). This is very true as responsible sites download same high resolution contents that were designed for pc version of the site it only useless css to cut some put and change width and height for others.

Unlike responsive design a lite simple dedicated mobile version won't include contents that are heavy.

2. Less low-end device/browsers support. A responsive site might look good on high-end mobile devices and browsers but it is the opposite on opera mini and stock browser of older devices.

3 . Facebook, YouTube and google are not doing it so you should know that it is crappy. That is all and nobody can counter these points

directonpc:
I have seen a lot of webmasters on Nairaland over hyping responsive web design.
I am going to state 3 reasons why responsive design sucks and why you should take the stress of designing mobile versions of your site.

1. Responsive sites load slow on mobile and consumes users data(megabytes). This is very true as responsible sites download same high resolution contents that were designed for pc version of the site it only useless css to cut some put and change width and height for others.

Unlike responsive design a lite simple dedicated mobile version won't include contents that are heavy.

2. Less low-end device/browsers support. A responsive site might look good on high-end mobile devices and browsers but it is the opposite on opera mini and stock browser of older devices.

3 . Facebook, YouTube and google are not doing it so you should know that it is crappy. That is all and nobody can counter these points

blueyedgeek:
Actually when doing responsive design, it's best approached from a mobile first perspective meaning that you design the most basic components first and then extend and improve for high end devices. By the way, look into zurb foundation's interchange for a client side only way of partially loading html content on the fly meaning that a truly responsive site would load different content based on user's device. With interchange, a browser only downloads what it needs thereby saving data. Another thing to point out is the way different browsers treat css's display:none, for some browsers, when they encounter this rule, they still download the same content as high end devices but opera mini (which seems to be your main concern) doesn't. Read through this link for the break-down http://timkadlec.com/2012/04/media-query-asset-downloading-results/
See first response.
Google just implemented a new policy that actually favors responsive sites in their search engine, so basically if your site isn't mobile responsive (responsive not a different m.subdomain.com) you won't get a good ranking on Google. Also, it would do you well not to think of responsive design as the best solution to everything. Sometimes having a dedicated mobile site is a better solution and for sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google, it is justified. Facebook for example has about 751 million people accessing Facebook from their mobile devices and this merits having a separate mobile site well tailored for mobile users. The last sentence in your post about nobody being able to counter your points is just arrogant, we are all in this to learn, if you present a good argument people would see merit in it and will agree with you.

directonpc:

Brother there is nothing like current technology... Maybe you are ahead of Google and co on technology that is why those guys ain't using responsive design.

My view on responsive design remains the same (it sucks at offering good experience to low end devices)

directonpc:
I have seen a lot of webmasters on Nairaland over hyping responsive web design.
I am going to state 3 reasons why responsive design sucks and why you should take the stress of designing mobile versions of your site.

3 . Facebook, YouTube and google are not doing it so you should know that it is crappy. That is all and nobody can counter these points

directonpc:
I have seen a lot of webmasters on Nairaland over hyping responsive web design.
I am going to state 3 reasons why responsive design sucks and why you should take the stress of designing mobile versions of your site.

1. Responsive sites load slow on mobile and consumes users data(megabytes). This is very true as responsible sites download same high resolution contents that were designed for pc version of the site it only useless css to cut some put and change width and height for others.

Unlike responsive design a lite simple dedicated mobile version won't include contents that are heavy.

2. Less low-end device/browsers support. A responsive site might look good on high-end mobile devices and browsers but it is the opposite on opera mini and stock browser of older devices.

3 . Facebook, YouTube and google are not doing it so you should know that it is crappy. That is all and nobody can counter these points

directonpc:
I have seen a lot of webmasters on Nairaland over hyping responsive web design.
I am going to state 3 reasons why responsive design sucks and why you should take the stress of designing mobile versions of your site.

1. Responsive sites load slow on mobile and consumes users data(megabytes). This is very true as responsible sites download same high resolution contents that were designed for pc version of the site it only useless css to cut some put and change width and height for others.

Unlike responsive design a lite simple dedicated mobile version won't include contents that are heavy.

2. Less low-end device/browsers support. A responsive site might look good on high-end mobile devices and browsers but it is the opposite on opera mini and stock browser of older devices.

3 . Facebook, YouTube and google are not doing it so you should know that it is crappy. That is all and nobody can counter these points

directonpc:
I have seen a lot of webmasters on Nairaland over hyping responsive web design.
I am going to state 3 reasons why responsive design sucks and why you should take the stress of designing mobile versions of your site.

1. Responsive sites load slow on mobile and consumes users data(megabytes). This is very true as responsible sites download same high resolution contents that were designed for pc version of the site it only useless css to cut some put and change width and height for others.

Unlike responsive design a lite simple dedicated mobile version won't include contents that are heavy.

2. Less low-end device/browsers support. A responsive site might look good on high-end mobile devices and browsers but it is the opposite on opera mini and stock browser of older devices.

3 . Facebook, YouTube and google are not doing it so you should know that it is crappy. That is all and nobody can counter these points

directonpc:

Thanks jare your brain is there. That is one point and you can even point more from same face book. Like that chat interface on pc and mobile (old mobiles and opera mini) responsive design can't give you that

romme2u:


it seems u are not abreast of current techniques and development in the web world.

i advised u previously to googled up adaptive design and lazy loading.

ok add this to ur lesson; graceful degradation and progressive enhancement. mind u this are techniques that have existed for ages.


incase u forgot where u were and where u are heading to: RWD is an attempt to cover as much computing devices as possible with varying screen size including those low end mobile devices even nokia 3310 and just introduce digital smart wristwatch. as long as that device can run a web browser.

it seems ur point is hanging on poor network connectivity, which is the inability of those device to download heavy web content that are meant for high end devices. i can assured u that network speed of today is far ahead of what was obtained in 2010.

musiwax:


You keep on harping about Google and facebook not using RWD, and basing your assumptions on this with considering multiple factors for their decision.

Facebook, Google and Twitter are web apps and not websites per say, which means their platforms are resources intensive and having RWD is pointless because of tailored content queries. This doesn't apply to a basic website and you can't possible use that as a benchmark for your conclusions. The new Google search algorithm actually rates website based on mobile friendliness and shows a text stating that the site is mobile friendly or not.

Please don't mislead people with mere assumptions without research. From the UX point of view, a seamless use experience is only achieved through RWD any other approach is simply a waste of valuable Dev resource which is counter productive.

Cheers

gpproton:
This OP don't even understand the meaning of responsive design and is writing rubbish about web design.
Guess he needs help understanding it meaning, and it just designing web interface without declaring any major fixed size in the design and when it CSS3 you can even use a different style sheet for a specific HTML document size, try to learn something good OPee!

FincoApps:
directonpc, I noticed some people don't have good points to counter yours but they'll never agree that your points are valid. RWD cannot be replaced yet but that doesn't mean the OP's points are rubbish.

Some people's problem is that they read too much

directonpc:
I have seen a lot of webmasters on Nairaland over hyping responsive web design.
I am going to state 3 reasons why responsive design sucks and why you should take the stress of designing mobile versions of your site.

1. Responsive sites load slow on mobile and consumes users data(megabytes). This is very true as responsible sites download same high resolution contents that were designed for pc version of the site it only useless css to cut some put and change width and height for others.

Unlike responsive design a lite simple dedicated mobile version won't include contents that are heavy.

2. Less low-end device/browsers support. A responsive site might look good on high-end mobile devices and browsers but it is the opposite on opera mini and stock browser of older devices.

3 . Facebook, YouTube and google are not doing it so you should know that it is crappy. That is all and nobody can counter these points

ConquerAll:


My dear OP, responsive design is the way to go, no doubt about that; it's the present and the future. You better embrace it for your own good if you're a webmaster anyway.

*The reason why it looks like it sucks sometime is that most acclaimed wed designers don't even understand it well, let alone, know how to implement it properly. What most designers do is to just grab a said 'responsive' theme, upload it and baaam, they have a responsive website. It's not done that way. I can't remember any theme that I used for any of my projects which I did not modify considerably to fit the project in question. Responsive design is not for a lazy designer because you have to test, fine-tune and test again and again in order to get it right.

- As for the issue on data consumption and load time, this is hardly a factor because we have faster internet networks now unlike before and any serious designer or webmaster that value speed should already know how to cut down on image size without affecting image quality much using available image editors or web services (e.g, kraken.io).

- As for device/browser support, a good responsive website will display acceptably on modern opera mini. What do you expect when browsing with my old Nokia 3110 phone? You also have to know that the world is moving forward and so should you. Today, Windowa XP is no longer supported and with time, its IE8 will die a natural death. Most newer themes don't even support anything less than IE9 now. For me, browser support forms part of my agreement with clients. If you wish to support obsolete browsers, then prepare to pay extra, no joke.

- As for why Facebook, YouTube and Google are not using it, permit me to say that they have their reasons and don't ever forget they already have native Apps for most of the mobile platforms already. Most notable websites have already embraced RWD (cnn, aljazeera, etc) and many website owners are paying thousands of dollars just to switch to RWD because it's the present and future combined.

I have the following in Support of RWD:

1) One and same content for both desktop and mobile - makes lot of sense.

2) One and same Domain/URL for both desktop and mobile - very good for SEO and the same Google is very much in favour of r/websites

3) No need to maintain two different renderer/template - makes life a lot easier for dear webmasters

4) RWD is future-proof - renders well on newer devices/browsers. MV may require periodic tweaking for newer devices/browsers

--

Most notable
websites have already embraced RWD (cnn, aljazeera,
etc)

scribespad:


So it is crappy because Facebook, google and YouTube are not doing it? Really Must all sites be like facebook and google?

FincoApps:
directonpc, I noticed some people don't have good points to counter yours but they'll never agree that your points are valid. RWD cannot be replaced yet but that doesn't mean the OP's points are rubbish.

Some people's problem is that they read too much

FincoApps:
Is that not the OP's point, it's not appropriate to use RWD on large websites. Some people are just here to cause confusion

directonpc:


You can try this: get an image that is about 4mb resize it to 32x32 using css, load the page and see if the web browsing won't download 4mb of 32x32 image. The big players know this... We are all learning