
Why Responsive Design Is Not Worth It - muriithi
https://managewp.com/5-reasons-why-responsive-design-is-not-worth-it
======
cleverjake
Wrong.

wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong.

A rebuttal -

1\. It Defeats User Expectation

This only holds true if A: your user has never seen a mobile site before (and
if they are on a phone thats true for about ~0.5s), or B: if your responsive
design is poorly implemented. A well designed site will be intuitive.

2 - It Costs More and Takes Longer

Let's assume that you have customers that will use your site on a non desktop
device. If that is the case - you are making users use the wrong tool for the
job. A site that takes advantage of the desktop experience will not work as
well on mobile. Creating a tailored experience for them will absolutely
increase conversion (if your site converts anyone to anything), and at the
very least, reduce frustration and eye strain. I can't speak for everyone, but
the month or two of part time work it took one of my jobs to add a mobile site
was paid for by the increase in sales not too much long after. Not only that,
but its now built in. When the kindle fire was released, we saw great numbers
on that device. Why? because the responsive design was well done and fit that
device's screen great. Saying that it 'costs more' is incredibly short
sighted.

3.Non-Responsive Designs Usually Work

'working' doesn't mean it can't work better. all text websites work, too. But
we use images because they enhance the experience.

4\. There is Often No Load Time Benefit All this is saying is that a lot of
sites are done badly. This has nothing to do with the style of responsive
design in general. Tools like Modernizr allow you to optionally load a number
of resources that would otherwise not load.

5\. It’s a Compromise Of course? All design is compromise. The goal is to make
the compromise in the favor of the customer.

Responsive design is not a silver bullet, and not always a good idea,
depending on the site - but this article is /really / weak.

~~~
kellishaver
So many people talk about responsive design taking longer and being not worth
the effort.... That's true if you start with the desktop and try and work your
way backwards to the small screen, which is how a lot of designers look at it,
I think.

If you take a progressive enhancement approach and work your way up from low-
end mobile to full-featured desktop, the process is 100x easier and the end
result is, in my experience, an overall cleaner and more stable code base that
makes for better performance across all devices/platforms.

~~~
lucisferre
Untrue in my experience, but if you're experience has been positive that's
great. I've done the mobile first approach and found that for anything with
interactions that are more complex than a simple blog or other content driven
service it does add significant time and effort and the quality of the desktop
experience typically also suffers as most of the focus is on polishing the
look and feel of the mobile browser experience in addition to addressing each
and every browser quirk between Android and iOS.

I'm a fan of responsive/adaptive designs but based on experience just dont'
feel I can _always_ recommend the "mobile first" approach to startups. Perhaps
for more established businesses that can afford the extra design effort, it's
fine. I still have a lot of reservations though.

~~~
kellishaver
There are a lot of cases where responsive design just isn't a good fit, and
something with complex user interactions (like a lot of web apps) is often one
of them. Responsive design is great for things like content sites, galleries,
informational sites... most forms of content publishing. Anything that
requires the user to actually create and/or manage large amounts of data or
has a lot of interactive media, however, would probably benefit more from a
dedicated mobile site and/or app.

~~~
tzumby
You are absolutely right about the complex user interactions. In that case the
responsive design could just be informational only (hiding all the complex
features that would otherwise be very hard to use on a mobile screen).

~~~
ilyay
This is a terrible suggestion. The age of crippled, stripped down mobile sites
is long gone, and smartphone users expect full functionality on their phones.
If that functionality can be provided with a responsive design, that's great.
If they have to use the regular website and do some zooming and panning,
that's a nuisance, but one with which users are familiar. It's certainly
better than not having the feature available at all, or having to hunt for a
link to disable the mobile layout.

~~~
lucisferre
I'm really tired of everyone talking in absolutes (also the overuse of the
word terrible). The right answer is (almost) always "it depends".

It depends how critical that functionality is to the core value the site
provides. It depends how appropriate it is to a mobile platform experience.

As a contrived example I'd probably be perfectly happy if I could only browse,
read, and maybe vote on HN if the mobile experience of reading was
significantly improved. I never want to write a comment from my phone, I hate
typing on it. Not a great example since a textarea isn't complex and it's easy
to add to a mobile layout, I just want to get across the point that not _all_
interaction is appropriate or important on every platform.

This is why responsive design is hard, because doing it well means far more
than just changing the layout, size and visibility of elements. It is a
different interaction paradigm and generally will need to be treated as such
to maintain a quality experience.

~~~
lmm
>As a contrived example I'd probably be perfectly happy if I could only
browse, read, and maybe vote on HN if the mobile experience of reading was
significantly improved. I never want to write a comment from my phone, I hate
typing on it. Not a great example since a textarea isn't complex and it's easy
to add to a mobile layout, I just want to get across the point that not all
interaction is appropriate or important on every platform.

But you didn't get across the point, because your example isn't true. I want
to post on HN from my phone; heck, I've posted on HN from my kindle before. I
wouldn't give that up for all the optimized mobile design in the world.

Grandparent is right, an absolute is appropriate here. Provide all the
functionality of your desktop site, or I won't use your mobile site.

------
matznerd
Biggest proof that this article is wrong? I'm on my phone reading the blog
post and the site doesn't scale for my screen width and it is so annoying to
read because I have to keep scrolling left and right to see all of the text. I
got so frustrated I didnt even continue reading the article and I left the
site. That is what will happen with users when a site doesn't display properly
for their device, it's a fact.

~~~
skrebbel
Good point, but of course installing a decent browser is the counter argument.
Admittedly my 3 year old Nokia may not be very representative, but its Opera
Mini version solves that problem beautifully. My hunch is that it uses
heuristics to find the main text area (which nearly every site has), and
adjusts the css of that block to $SCREEN_WIDTH. It's been able to do this ever
since I started using it in 2009. Now, I've lived under a rock since then, but
are you really saying that your mobile browser doesn't do something like that?

I believe it's such browsers that the author was referring to.

Still, admittedly, using heuristics to patch the css shouldn't really be a
browser's task, so your point holds.

~~~
matznerd
If you are building a modern day site, there is just no reason not to make it
mobile (phone/tablet) friendly. If you don't want to redesign an existing
website, you can just make a separate site that redirects, but which is a less
elegant solution.

------
uptown
"I am a fan of responsive (or alternative) design in certain situations – for
example, when dealing with a web application whose desktop design could not
practically be contained within a mobile device’s screen."

That's the whole idea.

~~~
skrebbel
Note that the author is a wordpress blogger. He may be referring to
traditional web _sites_ more than the average HN'er, to who the entire web
consists of apps (and a few blogs over there in the corner). I believe that
his point has a lot more merits when considering web sites than when
considering web apps.

For example, my favourite online newspapers on my cellphone are those which
_don't_ default to some half-arsed mobile layout.

~~~
mistercow
>For example, my favourite online newspapers on my cellphone are those which
don't default to some half-arsed mobile layout.

Again, that's an argument against _bad_ responsive design, not responsive
design in general.

~~~
ShirtlessRod
Why do so many responses seem to be "well, that's just a bad example of it"?
It reminds me of the similar "well, they're just not a _true_
conservative/liberal".

~~~
mistercow
Except that skrebbel said "some half-arsed mobile layout", which automatically
narrows us down to the cases where responsive design is implemented poorly. It
is ridiculous to argue against a design technique because sometimes the
technique is executed badly, and that's the argument that skrebbel's comment
put forward.

And no, it isn't in any way similar to "no true Scotsman". There is a pretty
simple and clear definition of what responsive design is, and that goalpost
does not move from example to example. There are cases of responsive design
that interfere with the user. There are other cases where you would only
notice that it's responsive if you actually compared the site on mobile vs. on
the desktop. The latter is good design, while the former is bad design.

------
nsxwolf
I just hate not having a choice. So many sites now make it impossible to see
the non-mobile version, unless you have a browser that lets you fake the User-
Agent, and mobile Safari isn't one of those.

This is exceptionally irritating when the browser is more than capable of
displaying the full site properly, and the mobile site doesn't have all the
features of the regular site.

Continuing a bit off topic on my rant, another terrible UX is finding an
article you want to read in a search, tapping the link, and finding out that
article _isn't available_ in the mobile site, and simultaneously not giving an
option for the full site. Taking it even further, some sites force you to
download the _mobile app_ , and only then do you find out the article isn't
available in that app! I'm going to stop now - I'm getting so mad just
thinking about it.

~~~
myared
Agreed, not having a choice is frustrating, and as you point out, having a
capable mobile browser alleviates many of those issues.

------
anonymouz
Personally, I _do not_ want to see a sidebar, taking up a third of the screen,
on my smartphone. I find the example that he considers fine quite unusable and
would not read that on a smartphone.

~~~
LaGrange
Double-tap on the text. Like the article says. It really does work, quite
often way better than attempts at responsive design. And then there's the
reader functionality in my phone.

The issue isn't, I think, responsive design itself, it's that it's not so
trivial to make it work better than device-based workarounds.

~~~
shawnjan8
But why require someone to double tap on the text? On a blog like this, the
primary action of the user is to read the article. It's bad user experience to
require an extra unnecessary step to do the primary action.

~~~
LaGrange
Because you might have some more pressing issues to fix than that -- it's not
a good experience, but, unless you did something horrible (which newspapers
often do, unfortunately), it's not that bad either. It is economy of time and
attention, especially as there's always a risk that your "better" version
won't be good enough anyway, and people like me will use the text extraction
features of the browser anyway.

Edit: I don't mean to say that it's necessarily a bad idea to go responsive --
it's just that it's not a clear, universal win.

------
tharris0101
Didn't I read somewhere that Steve Jobs was against mobile versions of
websites saying that the iPhone was designed to display the same website that
you see on your computer?

I know that as a consumer, I get annoyed when a mobile version of a site comes
up and the first thing I do is check for the "Desktop Site" link. I just don't
trust that the developer has included everything in the mobile site that the
desktop site includes.

A well designed site will look and act great on a desktop, iOS device and
Android device without extra work.

------
lucisferre
A surprising (or unsurprising perhaps) number of negative responses to this
article. I do see why people are so generally defensive of responsive design,
I mean it just seems like the right thing to do, it fits with what we wish the
commonly accepted wisdom should be.

That said, building anything more interactive than a blog layout with it is
actually very _hard_. It is time consuming, there is tedious work to do to
tweak for each individual mobile browser quirk, and it may not be the best
thing for a startup to invest time in. "Mobile first" certainly sounds nice,
but "desktop first" is probably a faster more efficient route to product-
market fit.

So I'd just recommend caution in how strongly we parrot "responsive/adaptive
all the things" as common wisdom without discussing the possible downsides. It
isn't black and white.

~~~
notjustanymike
I agree, responsive is challenging and always worth a conversation before
starting. However, his arguments in this article have no place in any
meaningful discussion. He essentially puts the blinders on and claims there's
nothing wrong and mobile design is unnecessary.

~~~
lucisferre
Agreed it's not a very good article. I'm just bothered by how quickly the
cargo cult behind any new technique or technology come out with their
pitchforks.

------
blauwbilgorgel
Preface by saying responsive design _can_ be worth it.

That said: If your mobile phone has so much trouble displaying a 960px width
static centered website (the norm on the current web), so much so, that your
mobile browser demands a different design, then I posit your design isn't
broken, some mobile browsers are broken.

I expect that in the near future, when resolutions get upped and mobile
browsing experiences advance, responsive design becomes more and more
unnecessary. To me responsive design for mobile devices seems more of a band-
aid for less capable devices. Less capable devices with post-stamp sized
browsers, we will soon drop in the same pile as IE6 -- Because soon we can
expect any browser on any device to be able to display a 960px width static
centered design just fine, without responsive design. If responsive designs
stays necessary, to me it would mean the failure of mobile hardware and
software manufacturers.

~~~
splatcollision
You're forgetting that old, less capable devices are still widely used, all
around the world, and will be for many years to come.

Don't forget a basic principle of the web: Accessibility.

~~~
blauwbilgorgel
I won't: Accessibility is very important to me.

Though I see a difference between access to design and access to content.

I think it is fine to just serve up a reset-CSS for 2008 blackberry devices in
a few years, like some now do for IE6 browsers. I don't think it is reasonable
or necessary to expect designers to create responsive designs that translate
to 2008 blackberry devices (or IE6 browsers) and also work on the future
devices of our choice.

~~~
maerek
You are making a very strong assumption that scaling a 960px fixed width site
to a viewport on a device is an optimal solution. It's fantastic I can see the
entire site on my device in landscape mode; it's a tragedy that I have to
double tap on a text block to make it readable.

Designers should be working to eliminate unnecessary and repetitive
interactions that get in the way of accessing content.

------
joshuahedlund
The basic problem with this post is that it contains zero data about user
engagement. One guy can project his own opinion about how he thinks his non-
responsive site looks fine on mobile, so clearly everyone else will too, while
I can project my own personal experience that I tend to find myself spending
more time reading mobile-optimized blogs on my phone, so clearly everyone else
will too.

It's been said a million times around these parts, but I guess I get to be the
one to say it here: Get some data! Do some A/B testing! Check your bounces and
pages per visits and time on site from mobile devices, then try a responsive
design and see if they improve (technically, you should split and do both at
the same time). What works for one site may not work for another. But
projecting generalized statements with no data to back them up doesn't move
anyone forward.

------
ericcholis
Simply put, Responsive design is only worth it if you do it correctly. Just
because your site scales with browser dimensions does not mean that it scales
with user expectations. There are a few rules to follow:

1) Test on as many devices as possible, even if you are using a tested
framework. Your design is going to be different that what the framework
author(s) have done.

2) Be agile and responsive to your users. Just because your responsive design
is amazing doesn't mean that the user experience will match.

3) Catalog your "must have" features, such as search and navigation. Make sure
that these "must haves" are present and accessible across all your designs.
Loosing navigation on mobile means dead ends for your users.

4) Related to #3, keep your experience consistent across your devices. Perhaps
mobile users do need a different site, but don't loose the core purpose of the
site. Mobile shopping carts need to function as similar as possible to their
non-mobile versions.

5) Responsive !== Mobile (sometimes). Just because the design scales with
browser size doesn't mean it's ready for mobile.

6) Use a framework whenever possible. I don't care how smart you are, it's
smarter to use a tested framework at least once. Even if this means that you
eventually build your own, it will give you an idea of the conventions to
follow.

7) Frameworks are awesome, but none are launch ready out of the box.

8) Find your dimension breakpoints, and what they'll do to your design. Don't
go too crazy though, you don't need to design for every conceivable screen
dimension.

------
notjustanymike
This article lost me the moment he quoted wikipedia to explain responsive
design. This is not 8th grade, come up with your own definition if you're such
an expert.

The rest of article was downhill too. Claiming the full site looks fine on
your iPhone is akin to saying "It works on my machine!".

It's pretty much a waste of time from top to bottom.

~~~
OhArgh
Yea that annoyed me too. What if I can't afford and iPhone with Retina
display?

~~~
randomdata
Out of curiosity, what cell phone that meets the criteria can you afford? The
iPhone 4 seems to go for about $200 used, or "free" if you want to tie it to a
cell contract – since you are buying a cell phone, that seems like something
you will need anyway. There doesn't seem to be a lot of margin for a lower-
cost device there.

------
webbruce
Yeah as a full-time frontend developer this article doesn't hold much water.
Responsive designs are a quick and relatively cheap way to get a mobile
compatible site going. It help decrease bounce rates and increase conversions
as well.

------
projectedoptics
The author fails to take into consideration tablets, e-readers, smart TVs and
every other device, currently available or in the distant future, that will
have a web browser.

"It Defeats User Expectation"

So let's keep everything exactly the same?

Responsive design to me is progress, eventually we'll either come up with good
practices for working with it or maybe something else will take it's place.
The way we access the internet is in constant flux and the 960 magazine layout
has many pit falls in terms of usability outside of desktop sized screens.

------
sparebytes
I'd read it except the page doesn't fit on my phone... oh the irony.

~~~
muriithi
So would you rather piss off those on small screens, or go the responsive
route even if it is not optimal for the small screen.

I always wonder how long it will take for tablets and phones to be so
ubiquitous that this debate will become moot and you target mobile from the
get-go?

~~~
adamkiss
You kind of already do target mobile – except, of course, professionals
quoting wikipedia.

------
emehrkay
As a web developer, I find that implementing a responsive design to be a
fairly and rewarding task. I think it is worth the efforts given the screen
variances of web-enabled devices. However, not all websites/services are fit
for a responsive model. Something like a Google Maps or gmail will benefit
more from a separate mobile site. While a Hacker News could easily go
responsive.

------
shawnc
This feels like it's arguing for limitations, and i'm never a fan of that.

The argument that responsive design is not worth it, because some people do
bad responsive design (or even most do bad responsive design) is pretty odd.
To carry that same sort of argument out into anything in life would land you
in serious life lessons.

Yes, responsive design takes more time (no matter how you slice it). And, yes,
sometimes it's not needed. Those should just be obvious to any developer worth
their salt. Like everything considered when developing a website - weigh it
all, figure out what's best for the project and it's users. Most definitely -
time/money will be a factor in those considerations sometimes.

All I can think is the writer of this article hasn't seen how powerful
responsive design can be?

------
TheFuture
I too am having lots of doubts on responsive design. I've yet to see an
example of a significantly popular and non-trivial website implement
responsive in a convincing way.

Anyone arguing that "they're just doing a _bad_ responsive design" I think it
missing the point. Responsive almost means it has to be bad in some way,
because it is a compromise of design between 2 very different devices, not
just in screen size but in use cases.

The "right" approach, is the same thing we've been taught for 50 years,
separating code from presentation. Building a robust API for your backend data
makes the front-end presentation much easier and cheaper, so you can afford to
make front-ends tailored for whatever you need.

~~~
jclem
<http://bostonglobe.com>

------
yen223
I have to seriously disagree with the 1st point.

Give me a usable website over one that "meets my expectations", dammit! As
much as I like the desktop version of let's say www.theverge.com, I can
honestly say it wouldn't work on a mobile at all. It would be too cluttered,
and the links too small to tap.

On a side note, is there a mobile version of Hacker News out there?

~~~
primatology
There are several. Cheeaun's is fantastic:
<http://cheeaun.github.com/hnmobile/landing/>

------
russelluresti
Link bait and wrong on every point. This article is a waste of time to read.

On each point...

1\. Where's the proof? Where's the research? The usability studies? The group
surveys? There is NO evidence presented to support this point. It's just
opinion and conjecture. Moving on.

2\. Any actual numbers on ROI or expected ROI? Nope. Moving on again.

3\. Again, any usability studies to back this up? No. Next!

4\. Research? Numbers? Proof? Nope. And on to the last...

5\. It's not a subjective decision when designers use things like evidence
(something you obviously know nothing about) based on usability research and
studies.

I have no problem with people speaking out against something (though the
comment that there is a lack of arguments against responsive is a joke -
there's probably just as many articles against as their are for due to link
bait like this), but when you do argue against something, you need to present
proof that shows you're right.

------
sunraa
The author raises a good point about page load times not really being
minimized and lack of thought around good responsive design. However, I'm
unconvinced about the rest of the arguments.

For example, he notes "The first rule in usability 101 is to give the end user
what they expect." Maybe for the first year or two in the smartphone era it
might have been acceptable to simply provide a shrunken zoomed out version of
the site. The onus would have been on the user to navigate appropriately.
Which... is a lot of work. My (swiftly getting older) eyes appreciate the
larger fonts and readability that in theory a responsive design provides. I
now expect to be able to read am article in portrait mode with a decent font
size without having to zoom in and out. Maybe I'm alone but I would not be
surprised if more users expect this now.

~~~
emp_
With mobile-first you are optimizing for mobile, so the only extra bandwidth
would be that fraction of your CSS that addresses bigger screens, so I think
that his page load times is a weak point just like the first one, it all comes
down to badly designed sites being bad.

~~~
sunraa
Good points. It's very easy to fall into the 'desktop first, mobile second'
camp. Again it depends on the client and requirements.

------
companyhen
After building some responsive sites in the past few months, I think
Responsive Design is worth the extra effort.

------
joshuasortino
Interesting read. It's fun to hear the other side of the argument. I don't
really agree. Some of these arguments could be applied to all mobile sites,
not just responsive sites. If that's the case, we've debated the value of
mobile sites for years and mobile sites have clearly won.

1\. It Defeats User Expectation — This is not a fault of responsive design,
but rather the designer. We need more, skilled responsive designers. A
responsive site should act and feel like a regular mobile site.

2\. It Costs More and Takes Longer — A mobile site usually requires two
separate code bases. With a responsive site, you can maintain both the desktop
and mobile experiences from the same place. Also, a good responsive designer
is cheaper than a desktop and mobile designer. If it's costing more, you're
doing it wrong.

3\. Non-Responsive Designs Usually Work — This isn't specifically targeted at
responsive design, but rather all mobile websites. By your logic, any mobile
site is subpar. While I think you should always include a link to the desktop
version (which can be easily achieved by switching out the stylesheet), I
don't think desktop sites are superior. A desktop view might be appealing to a
small percentage of power users, but the majority of users will appreciate a
tailored experience. Just don't hide functionality. You should be able to
accomplish the same tasks on mobile that can be achieved on the desktop.

4\. There is Often No Load Time Benefit — You're doing it wrong. A good
responsive design will have a much lighter weight than a desktop version.
There is no reason a responsive site can't function in the same manner and
achieve the same performance as a mobile website.

5\. It’s a Compromise — Again, this is a power user issue. Always offer the
option to view the desktop version.

It is silly to argue against mobile design. Screen real-estate is more
valuable on a mobile device and our designs should reflect that. If your
argument is responsive design doesn't offer performance benefits, than you
probably need to reconsider your workflow and RWD structure.

------
billirvine
This reads like someone's justification for their own lack-of-talent with
media queries and CSS, or their laziness toward creating an optimized
experience for all users.

"Responsive" is a trendy buzzword thing for what solid digital designers have
been doing ever since Netscape 0.9b tossed alignment into the image tag (among
other things)... paying attention to how a design looks on multiple screens.
We just have more screens and means by which to optimize for those screens
now.

And I'm really not sold on "mobile first" either -- feels like another short-
lived trendy buzzword thing. Scaling a mobile design concept up to the desktop
is shorting your 1024w and up users. Designers who care think about all
screens at a design's inception... then plan the CSS accordingly.

------
antonpug
I AGREE. Responsive design is only NECESSARY 1% of the time, and is poorly
implemented 99% of the time. Most modern mobile devices can show full desktop
site scaled down, with pinch-to-zoom functionality. Personally, I get annoyed
with "mobile pages" and responsive layouts.

------
jeffehobbs
This argument might as well be, "When you implement things poorly, they will
be poorly implemented."

------
philjohn
We used responsive design for the library discovery interface we produce, our
UX chap did a nice presentation about the process (and why we chose a
responsive web app, rather than a native app):
[http://www.slideshare.net/Shuckle/retrofitting-adaptive-
desi...](http://www.slideshare.net/Shuckle/retrofitting-adaptive-designs)
[http://www.slideshare.net/Shuckle/web-app-and-responsive-
des...](http://www.slideshare.net/Shuckle/web-app-and-responsive-design-for-
libraries)

Well received by customers and end users. We started bottom up, rather than
top down, so decided what was important and hid or removed the rest.

------
programminggeek
It does cost more, it does take longer, but it is basically worth it if only
because you are delivering a better user experience on every device. That is
the point of responsive design.

Also, to that end, a good responsive design is not going to destroy your
ability to navigate the page. It should make it easier.

The hard part of responsive design is dealing with pages that don't always
have the same layout. It is a lot of manual tweaking and better tools and
frameworks are needed to make responsive design faster, easier, cheaper. It's
still largely a new technique.

But, after being knee deep in a responsive site redesign from the ground up,
it's totally worth it for the end user.

------
splatcollision
Responsive Design doesn't have to be a pain if you just do a little bit of
thought, research and planning, and a little bit know and care about your
craft. Let the content inform the design, and plan from the start for flexible
designs.

It is going to get a LOT easier when I'm done with the next revision of Edit
Room... Designing to multiple custom breakpoints is amazing... [1]

Going responsive and flexible does involve a leap of faith, and articles like
this one are from folks who have not yet taken it.

[Edit Room is fast, flexible design prototyping and css
animation.](<http://www.edit-room.com>)

------
myared
His arguments are poor. These are the two most egregious.

(1) It Costs More and Takes Longer. Yes, designing something additional takes
longer; however, if he compared the time required to add responsive code to
the time it would take to setup mobile detect and an alternate theme, than
this point may have some more sense even though I'd still side with responsive
code.

(2) Non-Responsive Designs Usually Work. No. That's why we're having the
discussion. If regular designs worked, there would not be a need.

This is a problem that a lot of companies struggle with. It's fine to
criticize responsive design, but bring something to the table.

------
wyck
I actually agree with the juxt of what he is saying, though the article could
have been better, maybe with a more in depth analysis of user experiences,
examples and actual data.

If you have a modern mobile browser and if the site itself does not meet any
special mobile criteria/demographic/call-to-action, let's be honest this is
the vast majority, then the default experience actually trumps the responsive
one.

ps. I say this having a mildly popular responsive framework on github, and I
don't care because I often prefer non responsive BUT well build sites in the
default view on mobile.

------
neilparikh11
Like the author says, I would argue that it depends on the experience. The
first thing to determine is: what is the core experience you're going after.
For example, if you're an e-commerce website and your visitors expect to be
able to find things, follow things, and then buy things, a mobile website that
leaves out key functionality is frustrating.

There have been many a time that I've searched desperately for the "desktop
version" of the site because I need to do something that the mobile version
doesn't allow me to.

------
mtnboy
I wrote a fairly elaborate newsletter regarding the lessons I learned from
responsive design. There are no absolutes when it comes to this. The decision
varies from site to site.

If you believe that all websites should be responsive, then please read my
newsletter. How my revenues went from $25k to $19k / month average when we
redesigned and went responsive. How changing it back has now boosted the
revenues even higher than before.

<http://eepurl.com/przMX>

------
Dove
A lot of this article seems to be making the point, "My iPhone handles non-
responsive websites well." Which is cool _for your iPhone_. My Kindle 2 is not
as good at it.

There's progress to be made on both sides of the problem: websites adjusting
to devices, and devices handling websites that don't adjust. That iPhone is
good at the second half of that is cool and all, but I think it would be a big
mistake to base your whole website's mobile strategy on just iPhone.

------
tegansnyder
This article is a fucking joke

~~~
knowtheory
This is not a constructive comment.

------
flexxaeon
I can only assume that this was written by a developer who does not really use
their mobile device to browse the web much, if at all. In 2008 I was
"developing" for mobile web, but not actually _using_ mobile web, and would
have agreed with all of the OP's points. As I started to actually become a
user, the benefits of responsive design became quite obvious.

------
rileyt
This article seems way off in so many different aspects, especially the
example where they keep the sidebar beside the text on the mobile version and
say it is better.

I understand the point of view that responsive isn't the answer to everything,
but saying that dekstop versions of sites 'work' couldn't be more wrong in
terms of just about everything.

------
brador
I like responsive design when it rearranges and resizes.

I do not like it when it adds/removes information from the page.

------
lemiffe
Terrible article. The problem with it is that you effectively explained why
_typical_ responsive design (specifically) is not worth it. The older you get,
the more accustomed you become to expecting everything the same way. Accept
change! There is nothing wrong with it!

------
ltcoleman
I was going to read this article, but since I'm using an iPhone and your
article isn't responsive.... I didn't read it. Responsive is about capturing
your audience. This article is the perfect example of why you should do
responsive.

------
alan57
This is an opinion. People are allowed to have them. The article may make
points that some (many) don't agree with, but that doesn't make them not
valid. That said, the title of the article inflates the argument.. just a tad.

------
jblesage
Ironically, that scrolling social media box on the side was covering some of
the text while reading this on my galaxy s, leaving me wishing you had
implemented some kind of responsive design.

------
__abc
I couldn't disagree more.

Most importantly, I'm not sure it is safe to say users expect an IDENTICAL
experience (experience being the most important word) on their mobile as they
got from their desktop.

------
windu
I feel like it isn't worth it but for a slightly different reason.

Responsive design isn't designed from the ground up specifically for mobile.
In a mobile first world, that makes the difference.

------
thesash
Data or it didn't happen. There is 0 data to back up any of these points. If
you're basing your design decisions on generalizations in 2012, you're doing
it wrong.

------
rickmb
Using only simple blogs to prove responsive design is unnecessary is like
using only nails to prove that powertools are unnecessary and all you need is
a hammer...

------
bertomartin
"too hard, too much time" is just an excuse. It's a relatively new process so
it will take some time for us to straighten out best practices.

------
duncanjimbo
Sure, sounds like laziness as mentioned before. The non-responsive designs
"work" because your users haven't experienced something better

------
zapt02
Really weak article. This actually makes me look down on ManageWP as a brand.

------
mark_integerdsv
Uhm... Anyone else have a hard time reading this on iPhone?

------
nickpyett
Can't post comments on the post anymore... This just me?

~~~
freediver
Works for me!

------
edandersen
Let's not feed the troll. This is utter nonsense.

------
dotborg
Laptop - is it considered as a mobile device?

------
codegeek
call it whatever but I _do_ need to be able to see/read websites correctly on
desktop, mobile, tablet etc.

------
pruett
couldn't disagree more with this article

------
goldenchrome
starbucks.com is a great example of how responsive design can be brilliant.
Try resizing your window.

------
xdaseinx
couldn't read the post since i'm on a phone

