Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people around the world who can only afford to connect to the web via a mobile phone. We just have to accept that browsing the web this way will outstrip desktop computers sooner or later, and it’s a reality we have to accept and deal with.
The fact that a layout can easily be made to adapt to different screen sizes is one of the beauties of the web, imho.
In the video he’s just advocating adaptive design, and not stopping at responsive design The title is a red herring…
As far as the comments go on small screens, I’ve built a lot of sites for a lot of communities, many of whom are very mobile/active - the mobile devices are very relevant in their context. Nothing lasts forever, including every site I have built, and all my designs going forward are responsive/adaptive because thats the way the market, and my audience (including me) are going. I see bigger screens as a powerful way to prepare for a smaller screen, a bit like packing for a holiday - I know what I want to do while on the mobile device and I can use a big-screen to make the small screen experience optimal, “packing what I need”
What he is referring to has been LONG known as RESS (responsive web design + server-side components). It is nothing new. I think most developers just lump it all under “responsive web design” – I know I do. So putting aside the stupid title I agree with him 100%. Shoe horning content into a screen size is not proper ux. Proper ux is understanding the need of the customer on specific device(s) and providing variations of the experience to suite. Though the title is off-putting that is really all he is saying.
He presents a fairly weak argument in that video, imho. He doesn’t represent responsive web design fairly (example—at the end he mentions the potential for 100 breakpoints, which is nonsense, and would simply represent a bad approach to RWD). He also makes the problematic assumption that we can know what an end user’s purpose is, which isn’t reasonable.
I suspect that, when people argue for or against RWD, they have a particular kind of site in mind. I still feel that, if a site’s content doesn’t work on a small device, then there’s a problem with the site’s content, not the technology used to create it. If it isn’t easy to find a contact number for a business on either desktop or mobile, that’s a content strategy failure. People still have a love affair with bloated, unnecessary content, which is the main reason RWD is getting a bad name.
I agree that things like a tele # should be easy to find. I also agree that content is king and should be easily viewable on any device.
But as I mention in my new thread From 3-Column Design to Responsive Design, I think that things like a 2-column and 3-column layout have benefits, and it scares me to think that they must be sacrificed for RWD.
In my mind, that is taking content that DOES work on desktops and breaking it for the sake of mobile devices, which goes against what you are saying. Put another way, content should work on all devices for RWD to be the winner.
If you have thoughts on this point, please join the discussion in my latest thread!!
I think this maybe where your lack of access to a smartphone may be constraining your thinking about how people use them. You can be reasonably certain that people with a mobile device are very used to needing to scroll down a screen for their content. What they won’t do, is interact with a webpage that tries to present itself as if it were in a desktop browser - i.e. squashing the entire page onto a single screen as if nothing about the viewport had changed. Text becomes too small to be legible, images shrink into a coloured smudge, and URLs can no long be clicked on with any degree of accuracy, if at all.