Responsive Design. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

ON 25 MAY 2010, when Ethan Marcotte coined the phrase “responsive web design,” he defined it as using fluid grids, flexible images, and media queries to deliver elegant visual experiences (e.g. layouts and type treatments) that accommodate the reality of our post-iPhone, post-Android, post-iPad digital landscape:

Rather than tailoring disconnected designs to each of an ever-increasing number of web devices, we can treat them as facets of the same experience. We can design for an optimal viewing experience, but embed standards-based technologies into our designs to make them not only more flexible, but more adaptive to the media that renders them.

Ethan expanded his vision in Responsive Web Design, a book I consider so important I published it. I and many others think it is a landmark book, an evolutionary milestone in the development of web and interaction design as a practice and as an industry.

But I also think it may be an even bigger idea than we initially realized—an idea too big to be limited to a single, technical approach to the problem of multiple, disparate viewing environments.

I understand well why Ethan favors his fluid grid/flexible image approach. When you see a fully responsive design at work, it often seems magical.

But the purpose behind “responsive design”—the concept of what it strives to achieve—should be separated from the specific techniques used to achieve it. As the worldwide community embraces his idea (and as new methods of CSS layout become practical), the techniques of responsive design will continue to improve and, dare I say it, adapt. (See flexbox, etc.) Along the same lines, “adaptive layout,” a practice that combines the benefits of fixed-width design with the realities of multiple screen sizes, is no longer an alternative to responsive design; instead, it becomes a form of responsive design, albeit a less robust one than the fully responsive (fluid) method Ethan describes in his book.

Our understanding of “responsive design” should be broadened to cover any approach that delivers elegant visual experiences regardless of the size of the user’s display and the limitations or capabilities of the device.

41 thoughts on “Responsive Design. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

  1. Yes! One hundred times yes.

    Although I have some concerns with specific techniques that Ethan has suggested (as well as some others have suggested), the bigger-picture concept of adaptive, flexible design and layout is something I’m completely on board with. There are many ways to achieve this—some are right for some situations, and others are right for others.

    I gave Ethan some feedback along these lines. Getting all semantic about what is and isn’t “responsive” doesn’t help push us forward. Saying, “well that’s not *really* responsive because it uses Javascript instead of media queries,” or “that’s not responsive because it doesn’t have flexible images,” takes away from the much more important point: adaptive layout is good for the web, regardless of how you get there.

  2. Very good points. The whole movement is much bigger than several singular approaches. It needs to be a core change in attitude and perception of the industry we surround ourselves in. I work for a company doing exactly this, we saw this shift in user base years ago and have been striving to deliver optimised experiences ever since. http://wapple.net and @wapplemobileweb deserves a mention in the “Responsive” and “Adaptive” phrases being banded around, this needs to be a standard, not a new fangled shiny toy.

  3. I’m glad that you published this article sooner rather than later.

    The whole thing reminds me a little of the Photoshop vs. Fireworks debate, or the question of whether or not people should make mockups in Photoshop or in the browser.

    It’s important that people choose/create their own tools and methods. That’s how innovation happens. That’s how we (oh, dear God, now I’m saying it…) adapt to the ever changing needs of our industry.

  4. Hear, Hear!

    Ethan’s book is amazing. It has changed the way I approach my job. I feel it will be a gateway for many into the realm of crafting responsive/adaptive websites. However, let’s not get hung up on labels and specific approaches. Let’s just move our profession forward and focus on the users.

  5. Yes! Well said, Jeffrey. Let’s all understand and embrace the concept and not become distracted by a “tastes great” vs “less filling” debate (reference too dated? Sorry. I’m old). Is the label more important than the concept? Nah. The most important topic should be HOW we communicate the concept to educate our peers and clients and not WHAT we call it.

  6. I completely agree that Responsive Web Design by Ethan Marcotte is a vastly important book. Perhaps the most important I’ve read on design yet. And I was tempted at first to look at the book as a “how to,” because I am new to the world of crafting web pages.

    However, I think the important part of Marcotte’s book is the metaphor of responsive design. This notion of walls moving as the room fills with people. In other words, the concept but not the method. And I thought that was where you were heading in this post. That we should separate the concept from the method and contemplate the former a lot more.

    And you did go a good way there, but your final paragraph lands us right back into “approach” and “delivery.”

    My training is as a poet and fiction writer, so I truly understand the importance of craft. However back in the late 80’s when I used telnet in academia I thought there might be an artistic side to the internet someday. When academics started to discuss the new ideas of html and a “web,” I was thrilled. You need images to communicate. Every poet knows there is nothing but the image. HTML promised a connectivity that was exciting because of the narrative device it could become. — a narrative stream of consciousness that would blow Jack Kerouac’s mind.

    I’ve been watching your site with interest now because I’m convinced that if anyone can figure out how to transform the web into art you’ll somehow be involved with that. There are literally gazillions of blogs that explain how to. I hope you’ll continue to to discuss the metaphor of the web instead.

  7. I’m so glad to see this article. I encounter a lot of confusion about what “responsive” actually means, and I do think it’s important that we define it. How can we expect clients and users to understand it if the design/development community can’t? We need to agree on the meanings of words and phrases in order to have proper discussions that move our industry forward. Bravo, Jeffrey!

  8. Thanks for the post, Jeffrey. I remain honestly, stupidly humbled that you’re excited about responsive design, and have given me a stage—physical and, y’know, not—in which to talk about it.

    That said, I must respectfully disagree with this point:

    Along the same lines, “adaptive layout,” a practice that combines the benefits of fixed-width design with the realities of multiple screen sizes, is no longer an alternative to responsive design; instead, it becomes a form of responsive design…

    As I’ve said before, whether onstage or on the ol’ blog, adaptive and responsive designs are two discrete but tightly related things. In my mind, there’s a clear line between adaptive designs that use some form of client-side technology—whether JS, media queries, or what-have-you—to reshape their layout, whereas responsive designs are the marriage of flexible layouts and media queries.

    So if we were moved to get all Venn diagram-y (ooh! let’s!), I’d cast “responsive” as a subset of a larger class of “adaptive” design practices. In other words, it might be fair to say that every responsive design is adaptive, but that the reverse isn’t always true.

    But the reasons for keeping “responsive” distinct from “adaptive” aren’t strictly philosophical, either—at least, not for me. At the risk of regurgitating my AEA talk in this comment, there are some very real, very tangible benefits to beginning a flexible layout:

    # A flexible foundation means considerably less code. Without needing to create a new fixed-width layout in every media query, we can let our grid’s proportions do the heavy lifting.
    # Related to that, we’re much more future-proof by starting flexibly. I’ve been working on a large responsive design, and our resolution breakpoints quickly became outdated once we got our hands on devices that didn’t fit our initial research: 7-inch tablets, phones with 480×800 displays, and so forth. We added a new media query to work in a new breakpoint, but the lovely bit is that our design just worked out of the gate, the grid resizing proportionally to fit its new home.

    Anyway, that’s just my take. I’d hasten to add that there’s no judgment implied in keeping those two concepts distinct. I just think clarity’s important as we talk about our industry, in discussions both internal and external, and I’m not sure I understand the value in widening the original definition. If the larger benefit to responsive design is becoming more device-agnostic, more flexible, then what role does a fixed-width layout play? What benefits does it offer us? I mean those as honest questions, and would love to hear your thoughts.

  9. Well said Ethan.

    I think what is currently called the “responsive” approach will remain the panacea of responsive design for quite some time, one that I certainly aspire to.

    But I agree with Jefrey on this one. If you disregard the methods used to achieve the results, both adaptive and responsive approaches serve the same purposes.

    I actually wish we had a third adjective as good as “responsive” or “adaptive” to call what Jeffrey sees as the over-arching philosophy (because I personally think that labels are important), but capital-R Responsive seems to be winning the day.

  10. Derr, I forgot I wanted to respond in some fashion to Ethan’s questions:

    If the larger benefit to responsive design is becoming more device-agnostic, more flexible, then what role does a fixed-width layout play? What benefits does it offer us?

    In my experience so far, fixed width (adaptive) layouts are simply easier — easier to design, easier to lay out and easier to produce content for — which means they take less time, which means they costs less money.

    I have no doubt that we’re simply in a transition period — fully responsive designs are only more difficult because the hands-on aspects of the fully responsive approach is foreign to many of us. (I admit to being one of the many people who have not tried to build a fluid template, or work with ems, for at least 6 years because I didn’t want to do the math.) I, for one, will welcome our new flexbox overlords.

  11. Label things in a premature stage brings confusion and false security.

    Believe, we need to be more like water and less like mountains. The web is in constant flux, is alive… Let it go.

  12. Beyond the approach (which fills me with glee, and chocolate sauce), it’s a wonderful talking point with clients.

    I characterize this as an end to the mobile vs. desktop debate, and embed it in their digital strategy. By the end of the conversation they’re weeping what I imagine are tears of joy.

    I’m evangelizing thinking with viewports, and it’s working. Bonus: front-end development is fun again.

  13. My experience with budget & scope has been different from Tim’s. I worked on my first responsive project in January and was happy to see it come in on budget. The transformation from thinking about the web in terms of pixels & desktop perfection to percentages & proportions was easier than I thought. Plus, I believe it’s where the web is headed—scaleable content that meets you anywhere, be it on a mobile device or on a gigantic browser screen in your yet-to-be-acquired flux capacitor powered space yacht.

    The way I see it, flexible layouts are key to future proofing, and it’s hard to pull that thinking away from what I now know as responsive web design.

  14. I think responsive web design is a fantastic stepping stone towards where web design is headed. However, while Ethan, Jeremy, Trent and others have a strong grasp on properly implementing responsive web designs, I fear misuse of the technique is already beginning to run rampant (blog posts like “how I made my site mobile-friendly in one night” etc are popping up). While Ethan and Jeremy have made it clear that RWD isn’t a panacea for designing for mobile devices, others have interpreted it as such (even Jeffrey casually mentions “post-iPhone, post-Android, post-iPad”).

    That’s where I think Luke’s Mobile First book is hopefully going to step in and save the day. I wish that it came out first and then was quickly followed up by Ethan’s. The fact of the matter is the mobile context is extremely challenging, which is why I feel so many working in the mobile web cried foul when RWD came on the scene. It’s a unique medium with it’s own opportunities and challenges. To have so many designers interpreting “mobile optimized” as slapping some 320px media queries on a design and declaring it optimized does an injustice to the capabilities of mobile web (and tablet web and TV web and future contexts).

    I think our diverse device landscape provides us with the perfect opportunity to take a step back and reevaluate our content and what we want our users to accomplish across all contexts. Responsive web design is certainly a powerful tool to do things right, but it also provides a potential easy way to do things wrong (read: try to cram 10 pounds of shit into a 2 pound box). Addressing the most challenging context first (that means mobile) then adapting from there will ensure more bases are covered as the experience scales up.

    I wrote an article called Mobile-First Responsive Web Design in response to Jason Grigsby’s fantastic article Where are the Mobile First Responsive Web Designs?. And then of course there’s Yiibu, slowly bringing all of this to fruition. I think responsive web design is a super positive beginning of a long road ahead in this ever-evolving web landscape. It’s up to us to do it right.

  15. The term “Responsive design” is vague by nature and never really worked for me. in the first place. I always figured that it was a code-once, adapt to context design ideology, but when I learned it included media-queries (which is still using different code for previously defined contexts) it confused the hell out of me.

    So yeah, it might be good to make “responsive design” the design ideology and detach it from actual technological implementations. That way I can clear the media-query issue out of my mind and feel more at peace with the term. :)

  16. Yes! I’m glad someone if stepping up and preaching this.

    I’ve been trying to hammer this into people so a while now. It’s dangerous to define responsive design so narrowly. To use Ethans inspiration as an example, “Responsive Architecture” does not detail a specific set of techniques. It is a design philosophy. The flexible trio of grids, images, and MQs are an example of an implementation of responsive design but responsive design is not just flexible grids, images, and MQs.

    I and currently experimenting with being flexible on more then just the size and resolution of the screen. See What is design context? on Drupal Groups.

  17. Responding to Ethan:

    A flexible foundation means considerably less code. Without needing to create a new fixed-width layout in every media query, we can let our grid’s proportions do the heavy lifting.

    Absolutely agreed, sir. Nothing in good design is easy, but it should be “easier” to design once (and let the flexible rules take care of all the possible in-betweens) than to pick three or four sizes and design three or four “perfect” layouts for those sizes. That’s one reason I think your technical approach is so smart and why I called it “fully responsive.”

    It doesn’t work for every design situation—nothing works for every design situation—but whenever it can be applied, it’s a smart way to go, and, as I also said in my post, the results can be magical.

    I wasn’t advocating against your fine implementation ideas. (I was, after all, one of the people who begged you to expand on them at book length.) What I was doing in this post was asking that we not limit our thinking about responsive design to even your fine set of implementation ideas, but that we consider “responsive design” a call to arms to think differently about web design. That different thinking might be accomplished by the technical means you’ve presented to the world, or it might be accomplished in other ways, be they known (adaptive layout) or as yet undiscovered.

    “Responsive design” is such a brilliant thought, and comes from such a big thought place (like responsive architecture), I think we should consider your book the opening salvo in a campaign that may continue for years as well as a compact, self-contained how-to.

  18. Echoing Brad but from little further back, in my mind Responsive Design transcends the techniques it rode in on, and is a clarion call much like “Mobile First.”

    Additionally:

    To have so many designers interpreting “mobile optimized” as slapping some 320px media queries on a design and declaring it optimized does an injustice to the capabilities of mobile web (and tablet web and TV web and future contexts).

    Nobody who knows what they’re doing thinks a couple of media queries equals a mobile strategy, or that responsive design obliterates the need to think mobile first.

    On the other hand, for many content sites, a truly responsive approach may be all that’s needed in terms of a small screen strategy, and small screen is all some sites need.

  19. i really enjoy all this talk and philosophizing about best methods and such. but do you see this as strictly the domain of the “big budget” clients? what kind of effort can a firm put forth for a client who needs a site on their paltry $5K budget? no one EVER talks budget when talking about delivering the world to a client. yet THAT in my experience is what the vast majority of the designers have to contend with as the penultimate limiter to their client-based projects. my guess is that the testing time alone for such a wonderfully conceived and developed website [ as mentioned in this article ] would exceed most small clients’ budgets. how do we best develop for this crowd? i don’t think we can. thanks for all the effort people! carry on.

  20. the purpose behind “responsive design”—the concept of what it strives to achieve—should be separated from the specific techniques used to achieve it.

    Very well said. I agree with every word in this article. The fact that you can create a responsive web design without writing a single @media query is lost on a lot of people. I’ll focus a lot on this during my Responsive Web Design webinar, but RWD is very much a way of thinking with tons of ways to execute on that philosophy.

    Thanks for driving this point home, Z.

  21. There’s so much to agree with in this page!

    While I think Ethan and RWD as he defines it is just the bees knees – I also find defining anything to be all or nothing tricky in our field. As a phrase that has caught on because it rules, “Responsive Web Design” would seem to be an easy way for many to describe these different techniques to delivery these multi-device experiences. One thing I think becomes tricky is using that logic in a contract or statement of work or to another designer/developer to attempt to describe the process and then maybe you end up not making your images flexible even though the rest of the site is. Therefore ‘breaking’ the contract if people involved are sticklers for definitions.

    Ethan, you came up with something a bit too catchy! Perhaps you might want to change the set of rules defined here: http://unstoppablerobotninja.com/entry/on-being-responsive/ to be something like mWAT (Marcotte Web Awesomeness technique)?

  22. I have so many thoughts on this topic, I want to thank you Jeffery for bringing this up. I think Responsive Web Design is understood by most of us by the techniques used to create a responsive website rather than the goals responsive web design strives to reach. Ethan gave us a tool-set to begin creating responsive web designs, but what people really need are the goals of what responsive design is, or as you say, the concepts.

    To me, the basic concepts of Responsive Web Design are the same as when one is creating a normal website, we now just have a new tool-set to work with that has added more goals:

    Responsive Web Sites should place utmost importance on content, be optimized for speed, adapt to users web browsing device.

    This list could be expanded, please feel free to add to it!

    Content is of utmost important: Users come to the web for content. We should focus on creating content that is readable, accessible, and enjoyable. What this means is there should be a focus on strong web typography, clear headings and titles, appropriate font sizes and line heights, and so on. Content should also be accessible for all users. This goal is hard to achieve with the current techniques we have, but it doesn’t mean this shouldn’t be something we strive for. If a user is disabled and needs special content, the website should respond to that users needs. Lastly, content should be enjoyable. I’ll sum this up by saying, hire a copywriter, lol.

    Be Optimized For Speed: Sites should load fast, this is a given. I guess what I’m trying to convey by this is goal is that we should be optimizing content for our targeted web enabled devices. Will one page work for all of our targeted devices or should we create a separate mobile page optimized for our target devices other than PCs? That’s a question you will have to decide for yourself, but I feel both options are good solutions.

    Adapt to users web browsing device: Currently when I think of responsive web design, I think of a website working on iPhones, iPads, and iMacs. Responsive web design is much more capable than that though, the goal of responsive web design should be to create a layout that could be viewed on numerous devices, not just Apple devices. Thinking of Android devices alone, I can think of web capable devices with screens at 3.2 inches, 4 inches, 5 inches, 7 inches, and 10 inches, plus Google’s web enabled TVs. Today, the web is everywhere and websites should be able to respond to where they are accessed. I believe Ethan’s thoughts of flexible grids and images greatly help cater to varying web capable devices.

    With clear goals of Responsive Web Design defined, designer and developers can begin to work on improving and developing new techniques used to create responsive websites rather than argue about techniques.

    There is no set in stone way to create responsive websites:

  23. Beautifully said, Jeffrey, especially that final paragraph.

    For me, responsive design is the right philosophical approach because it encourages designs that from the outset are scalable and conceived for the web in all its plurality. Sentiments I’ve expressed today over on Harry Roberts’s post, Forget responsive web design (subject to moderation from you, Harry).

  24. Well put, Jeffrey, and the comments from the others here really strike a chord with how much Ethan’s techniques are starting to influence others and expand beyond even his initial definitions.

    Much like Pete K. explained, this technique is really starting to dazzle my own clients and is quickly becoming a requirement. When I show them design comp stills of the design at specific width “breakpoints,” they are somewhat unimpressed with the static visual (it does look a bit barren at first). But when I demonstrate the technique on a live prototype, they are genuinely awestruck. Then I get them to view the demo site on their phone or tablet and it really hits the note. One client even teared up a bit, and kept repeating, “this is amazing…”

    To Ethan, thank you for sharing this technique with us. It really is amazing and I hope we can continue to evolve these methods and learn to adapt them along with you. However, I think that Jeffrey may have a valid point in wanting to group this technique within the larger methodology of adaptive web design principles. It clearly fits nicely in the same toolbox, but I also agree with you in that it’s inherently more flexible and easier to code than creating multiple fixed-width layouts. Not to mention it also fits nicely alongside Luke W’s “mobile first” strategy. Whatever we collectively decide to call it, I’ll still refer to it as, “modern web design.”

  25. I have a question. I definitely see the benefits of responsive design and for some clients we use this method. But for some projects there are cases where some or a large portions of the content are not valuable to a person while viewing on a specific device. This is due to the different mindset that people have when using different devices. For instance on a mobile site for a restaurant you want to focus on finding a restaurant, looking through the menu, online ordering and more conversion based things. This is kind of the nature of a mobile phone. So you will want to customize the experience for speed and ease of use.

    So you would need to hide specific pieces of content or change how a module functions. For a iPad since it is more of a lean back device they would be more likely to access the entire site.

    So my question is does responsive design still apply when your talking about instances like this? Or perhaps web applications? It seems like a hybrid of some kind is in order.

  26. I’ve lately been comparing RWD to (a completely fictional account of the invention of) basketball. When the game was first conceived, I imagine this debate.

    The “coiner” of the term basketball (here played by Ethan Marcotte) stuck to his guns — Basketball was a game that had two baskets on poles, a single ball of such-and-such a size, and numerous rules specifying court dimensions, violations and penalties, time limits, etc.

    Other sports bigwigs (entrée the Z-man) said things like “this game of Basketball is really awesome!” And they were right.

    However, the community at large had a difficult time committing to the “coiner’s” rules. I mean, truly, the term basketball is really open-ended. I can think now of countless variations on a sport that meet the criteria of involving a basket and a ball. Can’t you?

    So the question becomes . . . is Responsive Web Design simply the sum of its parts — any design on the web that responds to its context — or is it the game that Ethan (as the “coiner”) dictates — flexible grid + media queries?

    Or maybe more likely still, is it too early in the game to know?

    (Read the actual story of the invention of basketball.)

  27. I was just having a conversation on Twitter about “adaptive” and “responsive” as the current buzzwords in our web design vocabulary and I can honestly say that, despite using the term “adaptive” for my book, I have little invested in that term as a way of framing what I do.

    I build websites that serve people regardless of the dimensions or capabilities of the device they use to access it. It’s web design. Period. And it’s the right way to do things. Like Ethan, the way I see it, responsive web design fits into the larger spectrum of adaptive web practices. And, in most cases, I see adaptive web techniques being a manifestation of the philosophy of progressive enhancement.

  28. And, in most cases, I see adaptive web techniques being a manifestation of the philosophy of progressive enhancement.

    At various in-person engagements, I’ve been saying responsive design (in the broader sense that I use it in this post) is a natural evolution of progressive enhancement.

  29. despite using the term “adaptive” for my book, I have little invested in that term as a way of framing what I do.

    Right, you used “Adaptive” not in the “adaptive layout” sense, but rather to mean web design that is contextually aware, design that meets the user halfway, design that allows for contingency. In other words, user-focused design built on the bedrock of progressive enhancement.

  30. The bottom line here is that responsive/adaptive web design is here to stay. I dare say that it will become the next “table-less layout” type of shift in the UI/UX community. It makes sense, it’s relatively easy to implement, and it falls right in line with any notion of “best practices.” Whether you use use media queries, JavaScript, or some server-side logic, catering to the user – regardless of device – is absolutely brilliant. It’s another one of those “why didn’t I think of that?” ideas. I’m in…

  31. There is no doubt adaptive design is quicker, easier, and cheaper to produce. However, just because adaptive design is more prevalent than “responsive design” doesn’t give us freedom to change the definition.

    Before I truly understood the complexity of a fully responsive layout, I too was undecided on the appropriate definitions for these new methods (responsive vs. adaptive). Having finally (nearly) completed a fully responsive website, I now see the need for a separate definition and none other than the term “responsive” suites the method better.

  32. Having read over the comments a second time, I realize my interpretation of the article was wrong. I think what this comes down to is whether or not we classify “responsive design” as an exact method verse an overall approach or philosophy to designing a website. Personally, I am flexible (no pun intended) as to what definitions the community ends up deciding … but I hope we figure it out soon!

  33. Just beginning to read up on this, but is it still the true that flexible designs often hide unused portions (additional menus, extra info that fits on the desktop design) via CSS but still send the data? I know some argue the flexible css vs. sniffing battle with the fact that the sniffers can be programmed to send less data to a mobile device on a costly data plan.

  34. Two quick questions with rather long answers:

    What is the relationship between Responsive/Adaptive web design and the “One Web” philosophy?

    What would you respond to people arguing that you cannot have the same amount of information in a mobile device and to a desktop device? (thus just adjusting/adapting the layout is not enough…)

  35. I think the problem with finding the “right” terminology is linked to just how radical a departure we are talking about with “Responsive Design”.
    The first law of design has always been: how much space do I have to fill up?
    On the web, you can’t know. And the old probabilities are starting to fail miserably in that there seems to be new variables in screen size, resolution, pixel depth, and zoom every day.

    And so, the kind of thinking that says: target the most popular and let everybody else fend for themselves, is becoming more costly and unproductive every day.

    The idea of designing content to flow like water into a container – the size of which the designer has no idea of before hand – is radical and scary.
    It’s a completely new paradigm and it will take years for designers to wrap their minds around it and for the tools to accomplish it, to mature.

    There is no expressing how big a change this is. And it’s going to happen quickly, too.

  36. And so, the kind of thinking that says: target the most popular and let everybody else fend for themselves, is becoming more costly and unproductive every day.

    Well stated, Mr. Fink. I think fluid/flexible is the most important part, and hope people don’t fear it too much. I was dragged kicking and screaming away from my pixel based perception, but it wasn’t 10% as bad as I thought it was going to be :)

  37. I was wondering how you thought alternative views such as magazine layouts for the iPad and other tablets fit in with the responsive design concept? Technically they are transposing the entire content of a site itself into a completely new format, designed specially for particular devices, rather than reformatting and resizing the existing page and design. Is this still considered “responsive”? Given your last paragraph, I’m assuming it should be! :)

  38. @trentwalton
    “I was dragged kicking and screaming away from my pixel based perception, but it wasn’t 10% as bad as I thought it was going to be :)

    This day has been coming since the web was born. But, like a parent who’s suddenly faced with handing over the car keys to a teenager who, it seems, was in diapers just yesterday, it still takes some getting used to.

    Lately, I’ve had a much easier time not only accepting, but embracing the loosey-goosey nature of what Jeffrey is calling the “post iPhone, iPad, and Android landscape”.
    Fighting for pixel-perfection across browsers has never been more futile.
    And the backwardness of the fight never more apparent.

    It’s just a bit frustrating right now because all the tools and techniques we need aren’t in place yet.

  39. This book has changed my perception completely. I have not stepped into percentages at all for FEAR and lack of knowledge. Lately I have been using a fixed grid system and swearing by it. It made so many things that much more simple. The system I use is the 960.gs I always noticed they had a fluid system but was afraid of it.

    Now I feel like a whole new world has been offered to me. The way he explains the basics in 4 chapters made me extremely optimistic and provoked me. Time for a happier blog design for myself. I can not wait to test these methods and create a completely flexible site. Thanks @Ethan Responsive Web Design is an enjoyable, informative, short read.

Comments are closed.