41–50 of 58 posts
Is "responsive" the new buzzword for "things that change when you resize them"? I've been seeing it used an awful lot in web design as of the past few years, often rather vaguely as some sort of feature.
It's the new buzzword for "This is how things should have been in 1994 but we were too busy trying to reimplement Quark-style rigid layout in HTML, sorry about those wasted 20 years."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the new buzzword for "This is how things should have been in 1994 but we were too busy trying to reimplement Quark-style rigid layout in HTML, sorry about those wasted 20 years."
Wasted? We're only here because of where we came from. Even if we somehow did responsive design from the beginning (although I recall "progressive enhancement" was a hot thing back in the early days) we would just have a whole different set of hindsight-is-20/20 lessons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the new buzzword for "This is how things should have been in 1994 but we were too busy trying to reimplement Quark-style rigid layout in HTML, sorry about those wasted 20 years."
I can't upvote this enough. Web 1.0 was "responsive" in that text reflowed and you could layout tables to keep things roughly positioned relative to each other. But everyone in the design community had just got used to desktop publishing and tried to replicate that, frequently with horrible results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the new buzzword for "This is how things should have been in 1994 but we were too busy trying to reimplement Quark-style rigid layout in HTML, sorry about those wasted 20 years."
I can't upvote this enough. Web 1.0 was "responsive" in that text reflowed and you could layout tables to keep things roughly positioned relative to each other. But everyone in the design community had just got used to desktop publishing and tried to replicate that, frequently with horrible results.
What I mean is that tables are not "responsive" and laying things out with tables, while "easy" was not enough for anything more than people browsing the web on CRTs, and certainly not for thousands of different displays with varying dimensions and resolutions.
Things are good these days. You can still use tables if that's as far as you want to go, or you can do things professionally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ish. It is the buzzword for "the same design works on a vast range of screen sizes and orientations". The fact that things rearrange dynamically as you resize your window on a desktop box is not the main target, the target is a design working equally well on your desktop, your table in both landscape and portrait, your much smaller phone, and so forth, so the designer doesn't need to maintain multiple versions of the…
In this particular case, could anyone explain how high pixel density and responsiveness would work together at the same time?
If one makes the window narrow enough, the logos expand back to their maximal size.
Never seen "Coke" in that classic font before. Is it new or perhaps particular to the US?
Slightly surprised that the "Coke" text from the largest logo wasn't used as the smallest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasted? We're only here because of where we came from. Even if we somehow did responsive design from the beginning (although I recall "progressive enhancement" was a hot thing back in the early days) we would just have a whole different set of hindsight-is-20/20 lessons.
Our society is where we are now because of the dark ages, but that doesn't mean that we wouldn't be better off if they hadn't happened.