₦airaland Forum

babaearly:
Its a fact not an insult, in btw you have been so rude putting your points out.

OK mr sabi

Nipeks:
I'm not on BBM. I only do Whatsapp & FB chat.
Is my website at a security risk?

Lol. I didn't say that. Do you have viewport enabled on the site?

Nipeks:
Funny, I was just checking out your site too. What can you recommend?

Like
1.
2.
3.
But I feel like these stuffs should be discussed privately... For health of your site and intellectual asset
I can afford to share my bbm pin on a public forum here: 756BDE43

Nipeks:
Responsive Design is a vague word with varing definitions.

My website http://www.postscroll.com will load a single column lite version with few or no images on mobile but loads an enhanced version with animations and more js when viewed on desktop from the same file without changing or redirecting URLs. This is all done on the server side using PHP sessing variables and a mobile detect class.

Some people will argue this is also a responsive design while others like the OP will rule out server side scripting.

This is why this argument might never end.

Nice site u have got there.
And using mobile detect scripts to decide content to offer isn't responsive design... True responsiveness works with css media queries. For example a framework like bootstrap won't use any server side line of code to resize or decide content to display hence giving poor user experience.

And about your site again I think I will signup and explore more (if you welcome suggestions I can recommend something small for your mobile version)

Another big success from the tech field that isn't using responsive design to render it's mobile version is stackoverflow.com, these guys are serious about the success of their product and not looking for an easy fix to problems.
Keep insulting me till tomorrow I will still research and develop my way.

Xtracoool:
The OP is wrong and so are you. Am more of a backend person but am pretty decent with Foundation 5 front-end framework. And it has this cool thing called interchange, which basically enables you to swap images and even an entire section depending on the screen size.

LinkedIn is actually responsive am only sure of that.

Threads like this should only be opened by professionals in the field.


Cheers

Professionals like you? Designing a few Web pages for people doesn't make u a professional my guy... If you want to get insulting. A web developer will know that responsive design isn't it... But some copy and paste web designer won't know this.

LordAdam:
Before you bash a technology, it is important to understand the problem the technology was developed to fix.

Now, before responsive design became a common term in the Web Development field, screen sizes of gadgets used to access the net were either PC size or mobile phones with definite form factors.

Then came iOS and Android, accompanying the rise of touch screen mobile devices. From then on, devices were manufactured having every measurable screen size imaginable. Today, there are mobile devices with screen size of between 3" and 12". Call them phones, pallets, tablets. Then there are hybrids (tablets that become PCs when a keyboard dock is attached).

At about the beginning of the varied size expansion, having two versions of a website reigned supreme. But as the variation increased so was the immense work required to design sites versions that kept up with the different screen sizes.

That was when the brilliant idea of one site design for all devices was birthed. It was a brilliant idea at the time, it still is.

History class is over. Now let's discuss your point. All new technologies have their caveats, and with responsive design, it is a reality.

However, here is the fact you should understand. A truly responsive design should mean less data for lower-sized devices. For a well-optimized responsive site, it's appearance on a 15.6" laptop, a 9" iPad, and a 5" Galaxy S6 should be different.

The s6 version should not load high-res end-to-end images used on the PC version. Because, that's the whole point of responsive design, the site responds to the screen size and a better-looking version of the site is loaded.



I'll give it to you, responsive websites don't look too great on low-end devices/browsers. However, there are literally a ton of responsive websites that look great on opera mini (it's all about optimization and pedantic coding).

Occasionally, a few page elements may be out of place or appear awkwardly. Still, it's a small price to pay for the benefits of not having to code separate sites for high end devices simply because they have different screen sizes.

And here's the last one, data is super-expensive in the country. It isn't elsewhere. Emphasis is on fast-loading of sites not necessarily how data-intensive the site is. I understand both are related, but you have to figure that designers design sites for people across the board, with the average person being someone with a decent device on a decent Internet connection.

After this, there are other accessibility issues that are catered to. Like those using legacy (low-end) devices, blind users (ensuring that the site can be read out by a screen reader)... For many businesses on a budget, there's a limit to how much of this support they can afford.

Thus, having a responsive layout for different screen sizes makes sense. And then later on in the project or sometime later, a mobile specific version that's very lightweight is designed to capture customers/audience that do not use high-end devices or use crappy network or have low data usage limits.



Are you freaking serious? They all are doing it. With a catch, they also have mobile-specific versions. Along with media sites like CNN, BBC.

You know why? Because they have millions of users and do not want to alienate any user. You're using multi-billion dollar businesses whose main source of revenue are through their websites, and have tens of thousands of workers (a huge percentage are Web developers, Web designers, UX developers, UI designers as well as several sub-niche specialists) with each getting 5 to 6 figure dollar salaries; as examples. And comparing them to a one-man design team.

With several millions of users who use Java phones in regions that do not have a 3G network, Facebook, Google, YouTube know they have to support these users by developing specific mobile design sites that are featherweight. Google's mobile version of it's search page is less than 100kb, who do you think it was designed for? Now on that mobile version there is no use of Ajax, but on their responsive site version, Ajax is supported.

And why not? It's a numbers game. Facebook and Google rely on increasing number of users to convince advertisers to spend billions of dollars annually through Facebook Ads and Google Adwords.

Finally, I noticed where you rebuffed someone who said Google now favors responsive websites. The real deal is that responsive websites and sites with mobile versions are both taken as "mobile-friendly" by Google and given the necessary push in the SERPs.

So, the Google algorithm wasn't a firm rebuttal of your points. However, you did make an inaccurate statement that a site cannot rank ahead of Facebook. Geez, several company sites rank above their Facebook page.

SEO is a whole different ball-game where the rules are about who has the most relevant links pointing back to their site, as well as a host of different factors. But inbound links are the most important. Facebook has billions of links pointing back at them, that's what's keeping them on top not the mobile-specific version or that you think they do not have a responsive site which they obviously have.

There's no hard and fast rule in Web designing. Whatever rocks your boat while using technologies that will stand the test of time and that fit the billing of what the site has to offer.

An information-based website catering to farmers in Nigeria should have a mobile-specific version, no question asked. Don't try convincing a service website catering to trendy young workers in the heart of Seoul, South Korea (where network speeds are insane and no one is screaming "you one finish my data?" that responsive design is crap.

PS: I usually do not comment on NL, unless I'm adding something new to the discussion. Read the first and third pages and was disappointed that there were no firm rebuttals to the OP. I was like the OP can't go on SitePoint and start a thread like this with the exact same reasons posted and not receive a backlash from the community over there.

@OP, this is 2015 not 2008. Responsive design is here to stay. If you are a designer, then clearly you need to know more about your industry and present arguments with really good facts that people can't shake a stick at.

Very long text... Can you make your point responsive?

babaearly:
Bro you are an ignorant chap.
For one, you are not a web designer or maybe you are a client who has been burnt by crappy web designer who promised you responsive design and gave you worthless dump.

Facebook, youtube and google use responsive design, but they build an app for their sites. Do you want small medium business to start building these mobile site apps as complex as those? do you know how much it takes?

And you don't know images, text and others can be resized, readjusted, realigned to fit other media devices including the chinco phones you referring to.

Ignorance is a disease

You can make your point without insulting me sha.

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

Some people are even taking it personal to the point of saying that I don't know this I don't know that... Yes I don't know everything but like Goodluck will say "America will know" my own America is Facebook and google! Them sabi pass us and will always adapt the best

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

Be like them or be more successful than them (responsive design won't take u that far)

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

--

Easier to develop doesn't mean better product (responsive design makes life easier but doesn't give better products)

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

Browse cnn, aj and Facebook on opera mini and give me feedback which one gives u better user friendly experience

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.

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)

TechLector:
i no want make you use laugh kill ya self

Do you worship mark? Do you know that your potential is unlimited?

Just wanna be rich and famous...

I miss mama peace

Ahmed4002:
Ea pius

Boss mohamz! So this is you on NL!

Good! Shopping from online stores loading...

DharmyYinks:
pls wats d usefulness of rooting a fone

It will withstand erosion and flooding

Lol

Nmeri17:
seun directonpc don finish you kpatakpata. they say common PC version, Africa's number one forum nor get

Lol. Did I just say that? I regret it and tender my apologies.

enmacmedia:
Facebook and the others you mentioned have a lot of content on their pages that is exactly why responsive design is not an option for them (this does not make responsive design bad).

Small business websites, blogs etc. can still use responsive designs without any serious negative impact on site performance.

So the choice for whether to use responsive design or not depends on the type of website, then the amount of content and type of content.

Nairaland for example uses a Responsive Design, because of the amount and type of contents on its pages. Site speed is still great.

In conclusion RWD is great, but should not be used on heavy websites like some social networks. Mind you Facebook blog uses responsive design and creating and managing mobile versions can be very stressful.

Even Instagram for PC uses RWD.

#MyOpinion

Nairaland doesn't even have a pc version because what I see on pc looks like opening a mobile site on pc.

And good thing you stated the limitation of responsive design not handling heavy sites well (it sucks at that side then)

Tho Google made an announcement about something like this at announcement of android 4.3 years ago

Chai

thewebcraft:
"solid points"? Where?

Hmm. Brother you convince people via solid points. Tho it's needless we all know responsive design if not really mobile friendly

OMOKUYE1989:
. prove that pls

1+x=2 x=2-1 x=1 Tecno=Infinix

togbonna:
All of your points are very valid, but you are only telling less than half of the story, i.e you only highlighted arguments against RWD. I can assure you arguments for RWD out weights those against, and I will mention just a few:

1) Device proliferation: There are dozen of device types with varied screen sizes, and many more are entering the market regularly. To make matters worse (or better depending on your perspective), based on screen sizes the distinctions between mobile and desktop are not so clear-cut any more (Are laptop 'mobile' or 'desktop'?): large screen phones, tablets of varying sizes, phablets, etc. So having just two strict versions of a website (mobile and desktop) just wouldn't do (try viewing a mobile version of a website on a large tablet to get what am saying). RWD is a clear winner here.

2) Cost: With separate versions of a website for mobile and desktop will essentially be creating and maintaining two websites with exactly the same content. So you are effectively doubling your cost and efforts.

3) SEO friendliness. With two versions of the same site each piece of content will have two urls thereby reducing the seo ranking factors of both.

4) The future favours RWD (even Google thinks so): Your argument relies heavily on resources downloads, like image sizes, for credibility. But techniques like image lazy loading (load without images, determine the browser environment and load the appropriate image), modernizr, the upcoming (or already here) picture tags, etc, makes the main point of your argument less credible.

RWD wins no matter how you look at it. Why would one choose an out-dated method (having a separate versions of the same website) over a strongly supported upcoming one? There's no argument here: RWD wins. QED.

www.icelark.com

I accept that designing twice cost more (but if user experience is worth it then go for It)
On SEO even Google knows how to index sites that are rendered from different files without any hindrances in ranking. Instead you will even get better ranking for mobile search because their crawlers will spend less time downloading pages from the mobile version. (believe sites with different versions can do even better on SEO).

And finally it is not everything that is old that can be tagged outdated rendering multiple versions for your digital contents can never be an outdated practice.

Any serious digital business will be ready for coding multiple times just for best user experience