I know what responsive means. I went from maximized window to narrower than many websites can handle and it adapts flawlessly. No idea how anyone could call this not responsive.
It's definitely a nice example of responsive design. If you resize your browser window, you can see how the content resizes nicely to fit almost any screen
It's very responsive, like literally shrinking the contents to fit the width. Like when iPhone was first introduced and you open websites using its browser.
What do you mean it isn’t responsive? It loads on mobile phones with a completely mobile optimized look. Have you tried it? Unless you mean you loaded it on a desktop and tried to resize the browser window to quickly check what would happen on a phone - no normal user does that
The site is perfectly responsive (even if the margins are a bit large). The problem is that makers of mobile phone browsers decided to assume pages are not responsive and need a large width unless you include a specific meta tag - which is an absolutely stupid assumption and not something anyone could have foreseen in 1998.
The fact that I'm on a desktop does not take into account that my browser window may be smaller than my 'desktop screen'. Responsive is the way to go because it works.
Technically it's responsive to the device being used rather than responding to user action. The design of a good responsive site should go much further than just making things appear and disappear or moving content around - it should be loading lower resolution images, changing UI interaction (eg not using :hover on a touch device), and even displaying different content (eg promoting a 'nearest store' to mobile users).
reply