Responsive design, important or not

[itmitică]

James Pearce said a few sensible things about this around 18 months ago, when the whole "responsive" thing was starting to make a lot of web designers salivate

Speaking of which. I guess if one aims at scamming its clients into always building two sets (or even three, as we've seen) of websites instead of one, even if the content is fairly light it doesn't warrant a stripped down version, the whole responsive web design thing may seem like a "business" stealer. Under these circumstances, so called "web designers" carrying a viral load against responsive web design is to be completely understood.

<hr>

As an aside.

I don't know, some of you may have noticed, but I have a thing for web developers with strong opinion but weak representative work. Why? Because all of us enjoy talking more than working.

James Pearce is the perfect illustration as to why I'm so bugged by these people.

He would be so much better off using responsive web design, for the following reasons:

- the content on his site is fairly light, which is a good thing altogether. What's there to cut, beats me. Only the user expectations of finding a normal web site, maybe.

- going on his site from mobile (smartphone or tablet), a broken "feature" it requires you to know which version to type in in the address bar, which is the worst thing ever: who want's to always type m.www? Not me.

- if you don't do the above m.www thing, and simply type www. another ugly issue on mobile, thanks to the same "feature": it shows you a page, where it starts asking you: "It seems that you required the desktop version but you are on mobile".

What the user is thinking:

What? Are you training pigs to fly? I never asked for a desktop or a mobile version of you site. I merely asked you to show me your page, that's it, so quit bugging me with your unfinished and unpolished solutions! Arghhh, never mind!!!

[ACigar]

Thank you all for suggestions...

[Stomme poes]

Off Topic:

For everyone who forgot, ACigar is the OP for this thread :)

[itmitică]

Off Topic:

Learning is about what people do and how their doing is recognizing reality, it's not about what they preach and wish it was true: http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proverb...A2ne%C8%99ti#N

Nu face ce face popa, fă ce zice popa.

translated to

Preachers talk, they may not do the walk.

There's no better way for the OP of learning the goods and the bads than by studying real examples. Discussing specifics weighs in much much more than any arid philosophical and conceptual debate.

[Stomme poes]

Nielsen goes even further... websites should be OS-specific and device-specific.

Well, the day that happens is the day we'll all have to use Apple products for everything. As a Linux user who believes in the freedom of information and the freedom of software choice, I am against his recommendations.

His studies show real problems. However his solutions to these problems will lead to an OS and device monoculture, which is neither secure nor free. I don't want an OS that tells me what I can and cannot install. I don't want my device tied to one publishing agent.

We all know if web developers have to make a Blackberry website, a Palm website, a Nokia/Windows Phone website, a non-Nokia Windows Phone website, an iPhone website, an iPad website, a Samsung Galaxy Tab website... that ain't gonna happen. Developers will choose one. They're already kinda doing that now. This means there will be no freedom of hardware or software choice... people can have any colour they want so long as it's iColor. :/

It's too bad this thing costs $300 for a PDF... I'll have to think about it, but I'd really like to read it.

[itmitică]

Nielsen goes even further... websites should be OS-specific and device-specific.

It's too bad this thing costs $300 for a PDF... I'll have to think about it, but I'd really like to read it.

Are you really??? I was sure you can recognize a ' "tested" on selected few to feed on gullible hundreds ' scheme. You know, shampoo and stuff...


<hr>

It defies all common sense to expect the same user interface to be optimal for 3.5-inch screens and 30 inch screens, with no modifications beyond moving a few things around. Diversity in our interactive platforms requires diverse interaction design.

I'm interested on what new things in UX he proposes. At this price he should at least reveal two-three new breakthrough ideas in UX or something. But if the best he can do is picking on responsive because he can't scam people anymore into always building up to four versions for the same website (where any mobile version fails without being responsive too) I guess we can all call on him and forget he's trying to sell, first and foremost... an outdated report, most likely.

But from what I'm reading in ToC, besides the "a dollar per page" politics he also has a "four chapters per page" and a "feed them pictures, not ideas" infantile approach:

- 78 topics in 240 pages
- 479 images in 240 pages

I mean, being that the images are already in color, many kids buying this report will lose interest before the first quarter. LOL

[deathshadow60]

Alright, I've bit my tongue on this one for far, far too long -- but I'm a heretic so I'm used to blaspheming -- I'm gonna finally come right out and say it!

Nielsen goes even further...

To the point I'd say he went 'round the bend YEARS ago... I mean seriously, are we supposed to be taking accessibility advice from an "expert" who's still using presentational markup, tables for layout, nonsensical gibberish heading orders, layouts that break miserably at anything less than 1024 width, fist in the face fonts with broken overlapping line-heights due to failing to understand how to even use fonts properly, complete lack of media targets on his CSS sending his screen choices to everything, improperly structured forms, STRONG on things that shouldn't even be receiving emphasis -- it really explains his being in "transition" from 1997 to 1998.

If you don't know what's wrong with:

<hr width="25%" size="1" style="margin-top: 2ex; margin-bottom: 2ex">


<p style="margin-top: 2pt">
<small><strong>Fox News</strong></small> <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/19/exclusive-gadgets-2025-frog-design-unveils-vision-future/">The gadgets of 2025: Frog unveils vision of the future</a>

<p style="margin-top: 2pt">

or

<form action="http://www.useit.com/search/serp.html" name="Google Site Search" method="get">
<table bgcolor="#ffff66" width="100%" class="navbar">
<tr>
<td>
<small>
<strong>useit.com:</strong> usable information technology
</small>
</td>
<td align="right">
<input type="text" name="q" size="30" value="" style="font-size: 80%">
<input type="submit" value="Search" style="font-size: 80%">
</td></tr>
</table>
</form>

Do the world a favor and shut the blazes up about web development, you have no business even opening your mouth on the subject!

It's one of those things that always make me cringe when people mention Nielsen, given that for me at least this so called expert has one of the most useless poorly organized websites on the Internet...

[itmitică]

Nielsen Norman Group Report
Usability of Mobile Websites & Applications:
237 Design Guidelines for Improving the User Experience of Mobile Sites and Apps
[...]
This report is based on 8 series of usability studies with users in 4 countries[...]

http://www.nngroup.com/reports/mobile/

Maybe, just maybe, they should've done the usability studies closer to home. Like on their web site: http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...sability-2.png


<hr>

Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, May 21, 2012
Repurposing vs. Optimized Design

Summary:
It's cheap but degrading to reuse content and design across diverging media forms like print vs. online or desktop vs. mobile. Superior UX requires tight platform integration.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/repurposing.html

They're even cheaper than that: not a single change in desktop vs. mobile. The most powerful online meme there is: http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...sability-1.png


<hr>


I'm not sure who'd buy a report or sign up for "full day training courses" from them. Certainly the same folks that make Ponzi schemes possible.

[Stomme poes]

I mean seriously, are we supposed to be taking accessibility advice from an "expert" who's still using presentational markup...

He's not a front-end developer. He does not care about code. He does not care about web standards. He does not care about the difference between presentational markup and Martian Markup.

He and his group only care about what the user experiences. Users *also* don't know or care the difference between good markup and bad. They don't see the code. They don't know.

Ask someone's mom if she can see the difference between <h2>Some header</h2> and <p style="font-size:30px;font-weight:bold;">Some header</p>. Nope, she won't know. Nielsen Group does not test markup.

I also wouldn't call him an accessibility researcher. I'd call him a usability researcher. His group tests non-disabled people. His test subjects do not have a layer of AT between them and whatever the web developer built. Markup matters a hell of a lot more when there's AT involved. Or any kind of robot.

Maybe, just maybe, they should've done the usability studies closer to home.

His group gets paid to test websites of large corporations-- that's who hires him. That's whose sites he tests.

This also explains why he stated in an earlier alertbox that "nobody uses feature phones"... he was focused on the users of the companies who hired him, and these people were iFreaks, which is a popular thing in certain parts of the Western world. Statistics still show that actually, *not* everyone in the world has an iThing. This is a failing in the studies but every study states who the testers were, what they were using, how they were observed, and which sites were tested.

I'm interested on what new things in UX he proposes.

I'm not. Because he's not a front-ender, and because he's not an accessibility researcher, I would not want to take his advice when it comes to *how* we should build things. Instead, I would take his research on *how people use the web* and use that to decide how I'm going to fix my own UX problems. Knowing human behaviour is great. Knowing their frustration is very great. Knowing their preferences is less great, since people don't all have the same preferences, but if I can see a majority wanting something I can give it more weight when considering something.

I don't believe a usability researcher can tell us *how* to build things, any more than someone who studies how people use cars should actually have any say in the automobile engineering process-- they're not engineers. Improving car usability can't compromise on materials, safety, environmental factors or end up making a car that breaks current road regulations. That doesn't mean you should disregard studies looking at how humans use cars.

Are you really??? I was sure you can recognize a ' "tested" on selected few to feed on gullible hundreds ' scheme. You know, shampoo and stuff...

Great! Do me a real big favour then, and do a cheap/free set of tests with as many users on as many devices on as many web sites for me. Then do the analysis of them for me. For cheap or free. Graphs, charts, eyetracking heat maps and other visual goodies as well of course.
I hate PDFs too so while you're at it, print it in book form please.

[deathshadow60]

He's not a front-end developer. He does not care about code. He does not care about web standards. He does not care about the difference between presentational markup and Martian Markup.

He and his group only care about what the user experiences. Users *also* don't know or care the difference between good markup and bad. They don't see the code. They don't know.

Which means they aren't qualified to say how to fix anything that's "wrong".

Sorry, but Neilsen's type of "usability research" just strikes me as the same type of feel-good nonsense fluff that fills theoretical science books; which often boils down to being little more than market-speak to prey on the ignorance of anyone dumb enough to hand them money for even more "research" -- as opposed to actually doing anything useful or offering constructive ways to improve things based on said "research". Unless you know the limitations and technology used to deliver it, any conclusions you draw from studies is likely flawed, incomplete, or just plain wrong. Not being qualified to understand WHY people are having problems and offer legitimate ways to fix it -- just makes such "researchers" come across as a bunch of ignorant whiny little poofta's.

Though of course, financial predators love incomplete data they can use to say whatever they want so long as there's a paycheck in it -- who cares if it's the actual truth or not.

Ask someone's mom if she can see the difference between <h2>Some header</h2> and <p style="font-size:30px;font-weight:bold;">Some header</p>. Nope, she won't know. Nielsen Group does not test markup.

Unless of course she tries to use header navigation to get around -- since that's part of why we have numbered heading tags in the first place! If you're testing for accessibility, semantic markup is a part of that -- if you don't know WHY there's a problem, just that there is one -- what is the point of companies just handing them money again?

[itmitică]

Let's talk business. Not as a developer, but as a customer, I'll consider their report when they consider it, and not a moment sooner.

His group gets paid to test websites of large corporations-- that's who hires him. That's whose sites he tests.

I seriously doubt that any large corporation would allow him to sell results of testing made on corporate money. Even more, I seriously doubt corporate generosity in sharing these results with the competition, paid or not paid.

... he was focused on the users of the companies who hired him, and these people were iFreaks, which is a popular thing in certain parts of the Western world. Statistics still show that actually, *not* everyone in the world has an iThing. This is a failing in the studies but every study states who the testers were, what they were using, how they were observed, and which sites were tested.

See above. Any large corporation would bury him in lawsuits, ban the access to the site, nuke the report out of existence before allowing him to sell info paid on their dime.

I don't believe a usability researcher can tell us *how* to build things, any more than someone who studies how people use cars should actually have any say in the automobile engineering process-- they're not engineers. Improving car usability can't compromise on materials, safety, environmental factors or end up making a car that breaks current road regulations. That doesn't mean you should disregard studies looking at how humans use cars.

It doesn't mean I should take them seriously. He's not targeting statistics in his report. He names them studies. A study implies an advanced level of knowledge FOR DATA INTERPRETATION. I can't see it. What I can see is someone selling for big what everyone already knows: no interface will ever be natural to any user. What is missing is the essence: credibility is build by example.

Great! Do me a real big favour then, and do a cheap/free set of tests with as many users on as many devices on as many web sites for me. Then do the analysis of them for me. For cheap or free. Graphs, charts, eyetracking heat maps and other visual goodies as well of course.
I hate PDFs too so while you're at it, print it in book form please.

You're missing the point. If my goal is to scam you, I'm afraid cheap doesn't come free or inexpensive.

[mrjonny8]

I think probably in the next few years, as mobile becomes bigger and bigger, responsive design will probably become the standard.

[Afroja]

My opinion is There's a huge buzz around it at the moment, and it's the latest fashion, but that doesn't mean it's good. Some people don't like it, because they want the site to look the same on all devices. I'm in two minds about it. It's fun to do, but on some devices at least (like iPhone) it's easy to double tap to zoom in and out, and you have a sense of where everything is.

[Stomme poes]

Unless of course she tries to use header navigation to get around

Find a mom who knows to do that. Hell, find a mom who knows how to CTRL++ to make text readable.
It's unfortunate but true, that people don't know the difference between a browser and google, or between "the internet" and IE. I would be surprised if even 1 of the 300 people in any particular study actually knew how to use Opera, and I would expect the number of Opera users in such a study would reflect worldwide statistics: very low.

Sorry, but Neilsen's type of "usability research" just strikes me as the same type of feel-good nonsense fluff that fills theoretical science books;

Have you actually read any studies by his group, or are you just mad that you don't agree with his recommendations? (alert boxes aren't full studies, they're synopses + recommendations)

I seriously doubt that any large corporation would allow him to sell results of testing made on corporate money.

This is what is stated in any book or study you purchase, and also on his site. If he's lying, go tell him he is.

You're missing the point. If my goal is to scam you, I'm afraid cheap doesn't come free or inexpensive.

You've read his studies and believe they are scams? Good for you. I've read them and believe they are not (I haven't read these mobile studies, but I have gotten older studies in the bookshop).

I also don't believe a user has to know markup to be able to tell you if they feel they can use something easily, without frustration, loss of time or confusion. That's what user testing is for: they test your websites for usability. Can people use them? This is why websites with sh*tty markup continue to earn money. This is why "Big Names" in websites still have garbage code and tag soup. They could probably earn a lot more by making their code cleaner and certainly by making it more accessible and better-working cross-device; but they found enough average users could use the site and those people become customers and it works.

Usability testing != markup validation
Usability testing != accessibility testing (though again if it's not usable, it can't be considered accessible anyway)

[lutrov]

It's one of those things that always make me cringe when people mention Nielsen, given that for me at least this so called expert has one of the most useless poorly organized websites on the Internet.

Really? In terms of "poorly organised", that's possibly true for some folks. But calling it "useless"? What's that opinion based on exactly? If you know of a better site on usability, please share the link.

The fact that Nielsen's site uses "older techniques" in no way tarnishes his credibility or reputation. Even though I'm not particularly a fan of his site design, I see absolutely no connection between that design and what he does for a living. Have you considered the possibility that his site design is the way it is on purpose because it serves to highlight what he considers to be actually important?

[itmitică]

That's what user testing is for: they test your websites for usability. Can people use them? This is why websites with sh*tty markup continue to earn money.

Usability testing != markup validation
Usability testing != accessibility testing (though again if it's not usable, it can't be considered accessible anyway)

Case in point. "Discover" something controversial enough, like developers clinking onto past knowledge, give them a reason why they should remain uneducated about newest techniques, like responsive, and they'll all jump on board and happily and lazily go against putting some work into making things happen, overlooking the *obvious* fact that the seller it self doesn't conform. You know, like overpriced sh*tty designer clothes no one ever wears, but some will buy them just to feel valuable, like bling-bling gangsta hip-hop singers.

About the second part. It's the biggest lesson of all: content is king. It's not usability, mobile usability and all this. It's content. Their web site sucks, yet they've found the magic weak point in web design and web content: gullible people. And they display the biggest contradiction, talking about mobile usability as experts, yet coming up empty on their professional web site.

So yeah, the users will use any web site, even theirs, as long as they NEED to (read "fall for scam" in this case). The problem rises when you actually have to GAIN users.

[itmitică]

Have you considered the possibility that his site design is the way it is on purpose because it serves to highlight what he considers to be actually important?

LOL
<lol>I think you may be on to something </lol>

[Stomme poes]

Even though I'm not particularly a fan of his site design,

Nobody is. I believe it's on that site that lists the Worst Designs In The World, alongside Havenworks, Yvette's Bridal and Evan Goer's "O Pointy Birds!"

Case in point. "Discover" something controversial enough, like developers clinking onto past knowledge, give them a reason why they should remain uneducated about newest techniques, like responsive, and they'll all jump on board and happily and lazily go against putting some work into making things happen, overlooking the *obvious* fact that the seller it self doesn't conform. You know, like overpriced sh*tty designer clothes no one ever wears, but some will buy them just to feel valuable, like bling-bling gangsta hip-hop singers.

Yeah, everyone *needs* to use amazon.com. Despite the fact that it does retardation such as using <i> tags and styles them to look like checkboxes.

Anyway, I don't see usability research that ignores code as some kind of excuse to write sh*tty code. But it sounds like you guys are arguing that usability research is worthless or a scam if it doesn't. Wth?

About the second part. It's the biggest lesson of all: content is king. It's not usability, mobile usability and all this. It's content.

Content can't trump usability though. Stuff needs to work too.

The problem rises when you actually have to GAIN users.

Sites with bad markup do that too. It's not an excuse. Don't confuse "usability" with "excuses for poor design". That's what I've been hearing in these last few posts and I don't get that at all.

Their web site sucks, yet they've found the magic weak point in web design and web content: gullible people.

You disagree with his findings and so call him a scammer. Again, good for you. I disagree with you.

[itmitică]

No, you agree with him. Which is much worse.

My saying is simple: he claims he's found the cure for cancer, yet he's obviously not using it to cure him self, but to cash in on others looking for a cure.

S.C.A.M. : Simple Crap Aimed at Money. Anyone self appointed cacique of Poyais here?

[Stomme poes]

No, you agree with him. Which is much worse.

I haven't read his studies in depth, so I can't say if I "agree" with him. I don't agree with his proposed solution to the problem his usability testing on average users using corporate sites on smart phones has shown (because this would require every device to get its very own site, which I believe would lead to an iMonoculture). I believe he is a real usability researcher who does actual, real research. I believe his real research shows real usability problems with major web sites on smart phones (and am interested in learning the details). Again, if you have a problem with that, go convert someone to something and you'll surely feel better.

[deathshadow60]

Really? In terms of "poorly organised", that's possibly true for some folks. But calling it "useless"?

Really? What would you call this?
http://www.deathshadow.com/bustedSites/neilsen.png

I call that useless -- Opera latest, Win7 Medium fonts (formerly known as large fonts)/120dpi. Doesn't declare any line heights so the layout is broken. (I usually see the same thing from the people who say there's nothing wrong with omitting metric on line-heights -- they're pages ALL do this to me!)

Try using heading navigation -- oh wait, the headings aren't in any sort of sensible order and appear to have been chosen based on appearance not semantics. Forms aren't properly navigable due to a lack of proper form elements and again tables for layout.

I mean, usability, accessibility -- in my book they're the same blasted thing, and this:

<form action="http://www.useit.com/search/serp.html" name="Google Site Search" method="get">
<table bgcolor="#ffff66" width="100%" class="navbar">
<tr>
<td>
<small>
<strong>useit.com:</strong> usable information technology
</small>
</td>
<td align="right">
<input type="text" name="q" size="30" value="" style="font-size: 80%">
<input type="submit" value="Search" style="font-size: 80%">
</td></tr>
</table>
</form>

Is a busted half-assed form that wasn't even proper markup 15 years ago -- and bad non-semantic markup DOES piss all over accessibility -- and if it's not accessible, it's not 'usable'.

Though the relationship between accessibility and usability is a bit like a hammer and a tool. A hammer is always a tool, but a tool isn't always a hammer. (I was going to use a Nixon quote there, but it would get me banned for ethnic slurs AND politics)

[Stomme poes]

(I usually see the same thing from the people who say there's nothing wrong with omitting metric on line-heights -- they're pages ALL do this to me!)

Really? This is new to me. I usually state em's purely for consistency... but they get f*cked up if they're just

font: bold 1em/1.2 'somefont'...;?

If so, I'm going to make sure I don't do that.


Re useit.com:
I hateses teh zoom, but it works over here:
http://stommepoes.nl/nielsenff.png no zoom yay
http://stommepoes.nl/nielsenopera.png opera
http://stommepoes.nl/nielsenchrome.png teh slutbrowser, tho it does have Ghostery now

I'm not sure how large FF and Chrome are set to, actually: just whatever I felt made it readable.

(I was going to use a Nixon quote there, but it would get me banned for ethnic slurs AND politics)

I lawl'd anyways!

I mean, usability, accessibility -- in my book they're the same blasted thing

Generally for me they are as well, but I have been looking at what usability testing entails and accessibility testing is generally untouched: even if they are slight things like a user can't read the text because it's 9px light grey graphic-designer-love-fest fonts, because no assistence or AT becomes involved, separate accessibility tests need to be done to evaluate a site's accessibility. You can say poor usability affects accessibility and it does... and you can also say poor accessibility *can* affect usability and it can... but only for those users who find they need some help, and when it comes to testing, I believe the two are separate enough to warrent their own separate sets of tests with separate testers. I believe regular usability testing will not catch the majority of non-usability-accessibility issues.

If your testers are young healthy brogrammers with Winblows and IE9 and a mouse and standard setups and no general web surfing issues... a typical site isn't going to show accessibility issues through them. They won't come up in those tests (I believe).

[itmitică]

I believe he is a real usability researcher who does actual, real research.

Meh. He's not. Here's something for a taste of real research: http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/...l.pcbi.1002511. They may have indeed find a cure for cancer, yet their reports aren't hidden behind a money wall.

Do I have a problem with you believing he is? Not at all.

[itmitică]

Anyway, responsive is important. Optimization of resources and responsiveness of layout are complementary: RESS http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?1552

http://www.slideshare.net/dmolsenwvu...ive-web-design

I don't agree with the http://nd.edu/ example, since it takes ages to load on desktop, even on my 20mbs connection, or with the http://andmag.se/ress/, which has some issues because it relies too much on JS, but I believe RESS it's way better than to build mobile.site.com, tablet.site.com, desktop.site.com, 3d.site.com and whatever ***.site.com the future may ask from web devs on a single web site.

Optimization together with responsiveness. Old web dev concepts, some may say, and I agree, though I believe it's about a more mature level now, in the approach we take, since today's technology is so much different.

[lutrov]

Really? What would you call this?
http://www.deathshadow.com/bustedSites/neilsen.png

I call that useless -- Opera latest, Win7 Medium fonts

Granted it's pretty close to useless for Opera on Windows 7 users, assuming yours in an accurate example. (it works just fine for me with latest Opera, on Windows XP)

In any case, even if it affects ALL Opera users (which it doesn't), that's at most around 2% of the world population, isn't it? With such an extremely low userbase, I don't think "useless" applies as blanket statement.