I think I don't have post screenshots. Most popular sites don't have responsive design (in fact I haven't seen any single one that does): Facebook, YouTube, Quora, Twitter, and the list goes on. With the rise of mobile devices I thought this would be the normal approach, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
Why is that most popular social media sites don't have responsive design (and choose to use a mobile version instead)?
Answer
Sometimes different content and structure is desired for a mobile site, not just a different layout and styles. The reasons for this approach are nicely laid out in Jakob Nielsen's article here:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-vs-full-sites.html
The basic point? The desktop user interface platform differs from the mobile user interface platform in many ways, including interaction techniques, how people read, context of use, and the plain number of things that can be grasped at a glance. This inequality is symmetric: mobile users need a different design than desktop users. But, just as much, desktop users need a different design than mobile users.
FWIW there has been significant push back against Nielsens' article by proponents of the single responsive site strategy and the ensuing argument is very interesting:
Personally, I think there are many situations in which mobile device users are better served with a site tailored to a mobile environment (note "mobile environment" means more than just a small screen), and it's hard for me to take seriously any argument against Nielsen's testing methods. But it does require more resources to implement the 2 site strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment