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

Great point. It's very true

directonpc:
I 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 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

I quite agree with you bro. But it all depends on the designer afterall, I have seen websites that looks the same on both mobile and Desktop, just a little tweaking with Javascript and css media queries to swap position of sections as screen reduces and such sites still load with speed. Your point doesn't apply to all websites and I can give examples if you want.

Please do

seunoni34:

I quite agree with you bro. But it all depends on the designer afterall, I have seen websites that looks the same on both mobile and Desktop, just a little tweaking with Javascript and css media queries to swap position of sections as screen reduces and such sites still load with speed. Your point doesn't apply to all websites and I can give examples if you want.

For web designers, if you want hosting @ cheap price: Visit Naija Domain to buy host with free domain name for 3000 naira only
3GB HDD 5GB Bandwith, Unlimited Emails and Free Domains
click this link https://www.naijadomains.com/clients/cart.php?a=add&pid=15

My humble rebuttal:

1) Depends on the coder and/or the technologies used. Let's not forget that the purpose of RWD is to emphasize content over design. Where you have an RWD site that is heavy on graphics, you have a problem.

2) Again, depends on coder. RWD is all about media queries. If you don't master this and are not comfortable with using a reputable theme, don't bother going for the technology

3) Just because Google and facebook don't use it shouldn't be justification for you not to use it. Do you know their justifications for not doing so? So if they decided not to have a website at all, would you also be willing to say owning a website is bad just because they don't have one? I think we should be careful about following the crowd/herd and strive to be our own person

yawatide:
My humble rebuttal:

1) Depends on the coder and/or the technologies used. Let's not forget that the purpose of RWD is to emphasize content over design. Where you have an RWD site that is heavy on graphics, you have a problem.

2) Again, depends on coder. RWD is all about media queries. If you don't master this and are not comfortable with using a reputable theme, don't bother going for the technology

3) Just because Google and facebook don't use it shouldn't be justification for you not to use it. Do you know their justifications for not doing so? So if they decided not to have a website at all, would you also be willing to say owning a website is bad just because they don't have one? I think we should be careful about following the crowd/herd and strive to be our own person

In your first point you are speaking for me and not against me. Should we all go for low media sites because we want responsive design? Low media might even mean getting rid of some hyper tech jquery and javascripts (cause now end phones don't handle these stuffs wella)

Your second point about it depends on who is using it... So Facebook and google lack the technical know how? Maybe that is why they designed multiple times for different platforms

Point 3 is pointless... What if Google and Facebook decide not to have a website? Are you serious? Like Google went into manufacture of sun shades and Facebook public library business even these businesses will need a small website.

I totally disagree with your statement, Mr OP. what is RESPONSIVENESS in web? isn't it not the flexibility of layout to adjust to device used to access? if you say YES, how then would u think that it chops server/bandwidth.
to all upcoming designers and developers, ensure to consider screen sizes of all users when developing.

directonpc:
I 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

You do not just come to a forum like this one and throw around your opinions which you probably gathered from another source as if you are an authority by saying that nobody can counter you. That's damn arrogant and that will also reflect in the replies you are going to get. Even Einstein wouldn't say that.
Your assertion that responsive sites download all high res contents rubishes that piont because you completely forgot or is not aware that there are server side codes to detect mobile devices.

That alone makes whatever you posted here meaningless. so I have countered you and I won't even bother for back and forths.

onyengbu:

You do not just come to a forum like this one and throw around your opinions which you probably gathered from another source as if you are an authority by saying that nobody can counter you. That's damn arrogant and that will also reflect in the replies you are going to get. Even Einstein wouldn't say that.
Your assertion that responsive sites download all high res contents rubishes that piont because you completely forgot or is not aware that there are server side codes to detect mobile devices.

That alone makes whatever you posted here meaningless. so I have countered you and I won't even bother for back and forths.

When you use server side codes and if statements to render contents you ain't really doing responsive design again o. Cause the opposite of responsive design is to detect user device and provide unique contents for them while responsive design looks more are screen size.

Get your points right before you take small *nobody can counter me* to insult me. I did my research before posting this topic. The only reason why you should do responsive design is when you lack time and resources for a good job.

ps3o:
I totally disagree with your statement, Mr OP. what is RESPONSIVENESS in web? isn't it not the flexibility of layout to adjust to device used to access? if you say YES, how then would u think that it chops server/bandwidth.
to all upcoming designers and developers, ensure to consider screen sizes of all users when developing.

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

I don't think you understand. For example, when you type http://facebook.com, depending on your profile, it downloads about 4-8mb wort of data. For http://m.facebook.com, it's just about 1mb.

The point is if Facebook had used responsive design, when you try to open it on mobile, it would still download 4-8mb wort of data but would render like http://m.facebook.com which could be 1mb. Thus the OP's point

ps3o:
I totally disagree with your statement, Mr OP. what is RESPONSIVENESS in web? isn't it not the flexibility of layout to adjust to device used to access? if you say YES, how then would u think that it chops server/bandwidth.
to all upcoming designers and developers, ensure to consider screen sizes of all users when developing.

hahaha
Me self am surprised o. Or don't I know what responsive design is again

directonpc:

When you use server side codes and if statements to render contents you ain't really doing responsive design again o. Cause the opposite of responsive design is to detect user device and provide unique contents for them while responsive design looks more are screen size.

Get your points right before you take small *nobody can counter me* to insult me. I did my research before posting this topic. The only reason why you should do responsive design is when you lack time and resources for a good job.

FincoApps:
I don't think you understand. For example, when you type http://facebook.com, depending on your profile, it downloads about 4-8mb wort of data. For http://m.facebook.com, it's just about 1mb.

The point is if Facebook had used responsive design, when you try to open it on mobile, it would still download 4-8mb wort of data but would render like http://m.facebook.com which could be 1mb. Thus the OP's point

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

OP, I and many other webmasters (both experienced and inexperienced) believe responsive design is the way to go. Just because some popular companies like google and facebook have mobile versions doesn't mean they aren't using it. I believe Facebook and Google are still using the mobile versions partly because they the domains have already existed even before the advent of Responsive designs. Another reason might be to reduce the stress on server resources.

Moreover, I have noticed it's not all Google's domains/Products that have mobile versions. When you visits some of their websites/Products, it either always displays the web version or Simply tells you that your browser isn't supported.

Just like others here have said and I must agree with them; it all depends on the coder, and the purpose of which the website is to accomplish.
High traffic websites might benefit from using a sub-domain to host the mobile version of their website.


PS: Also I forgot to say that responsive design isn't all about making websites look cool on old outdated devices BUT rather to make web pages look as if they were exactly and actually designed for the device of which it's currently being displayed on be it on a wide screen PC, Tablets of various display sizes and even on mobile phones of varying screen sizes.

bassdow:
OP, I and many other webmasters (both experienced and inexperienced) believe responsive design is the way to go. Just because some popular companies like google and facebook have mobile versions doesn't mean they aren't using it. I believe Facebook and Google are still using the mobile versions partly because they the domains have already existed even before the advent of Responsive designs. Another reason might be to reduce the stress on server resources.

Moreover, I have noticed it's not all Google's domains/Products that have mobile versions. When you visits some of their websites/Products, it either always displays the web version or Simply tells you that your browser isn't supported.

Just like others here have said and I must agree with them; it all depends on the coder, and the purpose of which the website is to accomplish.
High traffic websites might benefit from using a sub-domain to host the mobile version of their website.


PS: Also I forgot to say that responsive design isn't all about making websites look cool on old outdated devices BUT rather to make web pages look as if they were exactly and actually designed for the device of which it's currently being displayed on be it on a wide screen PC, Tablets of various display sizes and even on mobile phones of varying screen sizes.

Google and Facebook won't compromise for responsive design because they have good programmers (don't ever say it depends on who is bla bla...) Google have enough resources that even their products like adsense, analytics, +, Gmail, inbox and so on have dedicated versions for various platform. Funny enough Gmail, Google plus and Facebook work perfectly on old browsers and OperaMini on a feature phone like Nokia 2700 classic till date. But open your responsive site on such device and see

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

It's only upcoming and inexperienced web designers/developers that would upload images to the server without optimizing the image. I do optimize all images before even uploading them to the server. You will be surprised that that Image of 4mb will be reduced to about 1mb or less without any noticeable physical visual difference.
The problem is that there are far lots of people parading themselves as website designers with some even calling themselves developers. I take my time in doing my Jobs and I don't always rely on CMS. Even when an experienced designer/developer uses any CMS, they will always use it differently and more efficiently that the inexperienced ones.

bassdow:


It's only upcoming and inexperienced web designers/developers that would upload images to the server without optimizing the image. I do optimize all images before even uploading them to the server. You will be surprised that that Image of 4mb will be reduced to about 1mb or less without any noticeable physical visual difference.
The problem is that there are far lots of people parading themselves as website designers with some even calling themselves developers. I take my time in doing my Jobs and I don't always rely on CMS. Even when an experienced designer/developer uses any CMS, they will always use it differently and more efficiently that the inexperienced ones.

Optimising image is part of responsiveness? And don't you think it's server side that does the optimization?

Here are some cool dedicated versions for opera mini designed by the bosses.
People wer get brain go learn from this thread sha... But Thomas will wait for Jesus to come again and touch him

Also if you noticed, the mobile versions are mostly stripped out version of the main website. Things and features such as JavaScript and other web technologies that aren't available on low end devices would be stripped out in favor of performance and speed.

I have seen many websites that either won't load or will look very awful if only JavaScript is disabled. Now this is where Mobile version might come into play. Still yet, Responsive design would always still be used and must be employed because Responsive designs is all about looks and not features.

Now there is a rule I always follow - I design web project to work on all devices irrespective of whether JavaScript/JQuery is enabled or not. I only use them for added functionality.

bassdow:
Also if you noticed, the mobile versions are mostly stripped out version of the main website. Things and features such as JavaScript and other web technologies that aren't available on low end devices would be stripped out in favor of performance and speed.

I have seen many websites that either won't load or will look very awful if only JavaScript is disabled. Now this is where Mobile version might come into play. Still yet, Responsive design would always still be used and must be employed because Responsive designs is all about looks and not features.

Now there is a rule I always follow - I design web project to work on all devices irrespective of whether JavaScript/JQuery is enabled or not. I only use them for added functionality.

You ain't making a point but you understand why Google and fb ain't responsive. You are good on that one

directonpc:

Optimising image is part of responsiveness? And don't you think it's server side that does the optimization?

There's a major difference between optimizing images and resizing them using CSS.

If the image was formally 4mb and you optimize it (reduce it to to +-1mb) before uploading to server, it's that 1mb or less that the device would download.

BUT

If you upload a 4mb sized image which is large and you use CSS in re-sizing it, it's still that 4mb that the device would download. Because CSS works client side and it's only after the Image has been downloaded that CSS would now re-size it.

OP:

1) If I am arguing, as you say, for you, then perhaps you shouldn't have mentioned this as one of your reasons

2) Again, stop referencing other websites, in particular, google and facebook. Be original. I bet you, if you became real popular and could hire 1 million people and one day you woke up and said, "the only good websites are those that weigh at least 1 GB", you would get a following

3) Of course those guys won't go without a website for some time to come. I said what I said to make a point - refer to #2 above

It was just an example. Let me give you another example: See Facebook's graph api for pulling profile pictures its like this https://graph.facebook.com/100002676272426/picture?width=668&height=1080 . Now see the width and height parameters ? On the full website, it uses the full picture side. But on the mobile, it has to be reduced so that the server resizes the image RIGHT FROM THE SERVERS.

Responsive design would download the full image and use CSS to resize it. The Responsive design fans would really not notice the difference because it might look the same. But the fact is that the loading speed would be reduced.

bassdow:


It's only upcoming and inexperienced web designers/developers that would upload images to the server without optimizing the image. I do optimize all images before even uploading them to the server. You will be surprised that that Image of 4mb will be reduced to about 1mb or less without any noticeable physical visual difference.
The problem is that there are far lots of people parading themselves as website designers with some even calling themselves developers. I take my time in doing my Jobs and I don't always rely on CMS. Even when an experienced designer/developer uses any CMS, they will always use it differently and more efficiently that the inexperienced ones.

You have a good point about the Javascript thing. At least someone here is arguing with points wort learning from.

Although, good responsive designs have the ability to do away with Javascript codes that won't work on some versions of Browsers (including Mobile).

bassdow:
Also if you noticed, the mobile versions are mostly stripped out version of the main website. Things and features such as JavaScript and other web technologies that aren't available on low end devices would be stripped out in favor of performance and speed.

I have seen many websites that either won't load or will look very awful if only JavaScript is disabled. Now this is where Mobile version might come into play. Still yet, Responsive design would always still be used and must be employed because Responsive designs is all about looks and not features.

Now there is a rule I always follow - I design web project to work on all devices irrespective of whether JavaScript/JQuery is enabled or not. I only use them for added functionality.

People that say it depends on the coder, I agree!! It depends on whether or not the coder knows what he's doing

Okay, to use a responsive design or not depends on the type of website. If it is a very large website, then responsive design is not advisable (pity the Nokia 3510i users naaaw). If it is just an average website with normal quantity and size of images, then your responsive design is good.

For example sites like Ebay, Youtube, Jobberman, Freelancer, Yahoo, Twitter etc(Large sites with reasonable developers) all have mobile versions

It's also the same reason why on slow internet, you would see somebody on a computer loading http://m.facebook.com instead of http://facebook.com. Now imagine the pain you would cause the person if http://facebook.com was responsive .

directonpc:
I 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.

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/

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.

See first response.

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

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.

Guess I go by the flow... Sometimes responsive and other times I just let it flow in a '' non responsive" ones..

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.

In the tech world we don't defend things just because we love them who loves the stress of designing a site multiple times to suite different platforms? I will say not me. Responsive design is just for people that can't afford the resources and time but the best practice is to code multiple times.

And about SEO believe me your responsive site won't rank above Facebook on search results it will even rank lower because Google crawler for mobile might be spending too much time downloading you media query css. Google gives room for m.domain.com in their crawling algorithm

Wetin we no go hear

i understand you...but u are not getting my point so well.think outside the box- the m.facebook.com is the mobile version of Facebook desktop PC coded separately. i aint referring to this example, rather a one-size-fits-all.don't u know that before Facebook desktop view redirects to that of the mobile version, a script checks the screen width before determining where to land to? doesn't that amount resource use?
though nairaland was coded as pbnl, it still kept responsiveness. forget about bandwidth! that will be handled by the web host if u opt for the best. and if the data used by the users remains your concern...then I guess your aim to develop a meaningful website useless.
my submission is very straight forward. follow your instinct!

ps3o:
i understand you...but u are not getting my point so well.think outside the box- the m.facebook.com is the mobile version of Facebook desktop PC coded separately. i aint referring to this example, rather a one-size-fits-all.don't u know that before Facebook desktop view redirects to that of the mobile version, a script checks the screen width before determining where to land to? doesn't that amount resource use?
though nairaland was coded as pbnl, it still kept responsiveness. forget about bandwidth! that will be handled by the web host if u opt for the best. and if the data used by the users remains your concern...then I guess your aim to develop a meaningful website useless.
my submission is very straight forward. follow your instinct!

What are you saying?