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.

directonpc:

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

stynhaq:
In my opinion, the responsive Design argument is just like the other similar arguments in IT in general - there are no rules of thumb.

Use whatever solves.

FincoApps:


hahahaha, I respect Facebook more when it comes to web technologies. They used it all!!!

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

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

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.

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

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.

directonpc:


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)

Nipeks:


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

directonpc:

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:

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

directonpc:

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

directonpc:

You can make your point without insulting me sha.

webcalculator:


Facebook is a large site. They can't do anything responsive on that site. Their only option is mobile site. The fact that they use it, doesn't mean that RWD is bad practice.
All I can understand is that you just started this web stuff of recent, with experience, you will come to know when one is the best and who or what to respect

babaearly:


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

FincoApps:


lol, something I noticed about some Nairalanders is that they always try to bring experience into a simple argument instead of laying down their points.

Note: People I know as professionals personally never do this.

directonpc:

OK mr sabi

babaearly:

Yes fool

Nipeks:


I had it enabled when Google webmaster web app advised me to use it but later put it inside a comment since I couldn't detect any difference. Besides, it seems to be causing rendering problems on some touch devices. I don't care much about it's SEO requirement, it has little overall effect.

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

yusufu16:


LIES LIES LIES. type facebook.com or google.com in your mobile browser and see if it is not responsive. Responsiveness is the future of Web design. Don't deceive yourself.

directonpc:

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.

directonpc:

JUST Checked your site on pc... You have a vision that will surely work keep it up

Nipeks:

Thanks. This mean a lot to me.

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

yusufu16:


Even google use mobile responsiveness to rank websites. OP please research well before posting