Did you know that only 50% of users actually have their browser windows at
full maximum width. The other 50% don't actually have it at full width. So
the idea of having max/min allows us developers to create custom widths with
different window sizes even if someone like myself who is on a 1440 x 900
resolution but have my browser size at 1142 x 721. So I would actually see a
smaller version of the design than a maximum screen resolution.
This gives us a greater control over the layout. It can be daunting and
difficult at first to develop in this environment. The screen resolution can
be a headache with so many sizes to think about especially if you are
building for mobiles in mind. The biggest problem is testing I find getting
hold of devices to test on to be difficult, as we already have issues
getting hold of older browsers.
As Joseph mentioned users won't necessary be scaling their browsers up and
down to see the results but more so when they aren't actually seeing things
at full width they will evidently see a smaller slim down version if they
were to increase their browser window they should see a change in layout if
you have set the min/max width. So there is a small chance of users flexing
their browser windows at times.
One major draw back if any of you have noticed is when you *zoom in*. Have
you noticed using media queries with min/max width when you zoom in the
layout changes as the browser thinks your resolution has changed which
alters the layout. I for one find this a limitation and annoying especially
for users wanting to zoom into a specific section or want to enlarge font
size this really hurts in terms of accessibility.
This is another jumping stone for us web developers with new technology
seems to come with more complexity and more constraints to think about. I am
excited about this and it will take time to fully master this new feature. I
have no doubt that within the next year or two majority of sites will
conform to this new responsive approach.
Steven Wu
Freelance Web Developer
+44 (0)7540599163
Skype: cyberpunkstudio
www.designtodevelop.com
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Joseph Taylor j...@sitesbyjoe.com wrote:
**
Tee,
I agree with your thinking regarding a desktop user getting the 320px wide
layout. It can seem silly. At the same time, responsive design isn't
supposed to be something visible but something invisible.
I doubt desktop users are ever resizing their browser windows and gasping
in astonishment when the layout conforms. Table and fluid layouts have been
doing this always and no one has ever cared then either as a user.
Responsive developers are the only ones scaling the browser in and out and
checking the results.
Yeah, there are a bunch of items that are frustrating with responsive
design - especially if your fighting to get an element to change from one
layout to another with out weirdness.
I've only made one responsive site so far and I had to really dumb it
down to get used to the work method itself, the order I should be doing
things, trying to gear for mobile first. I'm in the midst of a ton of
experimentation.
Here's the site so far if my own code can help you at all:
http://jacque.sitesbyjoe.com
I wouldn't user this building method on a client site unless they
specifically wanted it at this point or until I figure out some more tricks
to working this way. Would I offer it? Heck yes. I want to master the style
and I'm sure you do too.
Keep at it.
*Joseph R. B. Taylor*
*Web Designer/Developer*
--
Sites by Joe
*Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design*
Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com
Phone: (508) 840-9657
Email: j...@sitesbyjoe.com
On 9/25/11 5:38 PM, tee wrote:
I would love to hear what other think about the approach for device-width vs
max/min width.
For myself, I have done a couple sites targeting device-width and really
think this is better approach. The hype about responsive design got me to try
out the max/min width approach, I find that I need to tackle more the the
window resizes (and this means writing more CSS rules means penalizing
touchscreen device user), and the experience can be quite awful seeing it
from desktop browser.
I'm sort of in a defeated mood right now, really feel that except the ego to
show off, I'm unable to find a convincing reason that desktop user needs to
be given a responsive website anything smaller than 800px.
tee
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help:
