[eksith]

"Responsive" is just a fancy word for "doesn't suck on mobile". Most people just don't care how something looks like, even on mobile, if it doesn't just break outright or doesn't shove that annoying "download our app" rubbish in their faces.

No one really goes to a site for the layout and design (unless it's a game or a layout and design site), they go to consume. If there's nothing to consume, but have a lovely responsive layout, they go oh, that's pretty and leave.

Regardless of how ugly something is, if there's an inherent use or appeal in some way, people will flock to it en masse. Case in point: HN.

[sjs382]

> "Responsive" is just a fancy word for "doesn't suck on mobile".

No. Responsive has a different meaning than what you claim. You can have a best-of-breed that isn't responsive. Being responsive means that the site responds and adapts to the user's environment (screen size, device orientation, device type, etc).

[paulmckeever]

That's not really what responsive design means at all. And I don't find your comment particularly constructive.

Useful content is essential. But responsive design is about making that content readable, accessible and hopefully attractive to the reader no matter what the device they're using to consume it.

It has nothing to do with "pretty" layouts and everything to do with the web's fundamental principle of universality.

And - by the way - many people do care how something looks, especially on mobile. Just because a site has good content doesn't mean it shouldn't be easy to read.

[eksith]

>everything to do with the web's fundamental principle of universality.

Precisely everything that anyone who doesn't have JS capability or perhaps an older or less capable browser (whatever reason they still have one) is denied. The readability, accessibility and attractiveness you value often have the NASA predicament : Faster, Better, Cheaper... pick "2".

Have you tried browsing your site on an older Nokia?

[pixelcort]

Isn't it technically more about using CSS3 and JS to adapt to the browser width and/or capabilities, while the HTML otherwise remains the same or similar?

In contrast to browser detection and/or loading a completely different HTML representation, with or without a completely separate URL.

[eksith]

Yup. And those things aren't nearly as complicated as people make them out to be. The more "things" you add to a layer, the more you need to tweak those things and more the likelyhood of something breaking, not looking quite right or just plain failing.

It's actually possible to have one stylesheet dictate the vast majority of layout needs. Just a matter of people willing to sit down and take a patient look at what it is they're actually trying to accomplish (vs, what they can throw at the browser).

[nearengine]

Well, according to Ethan Marcotte, RWD has three key components: media queries, a fluid grid, and flexible images. What you describe is closer to "adaptive" design - the design adapts to different resolutions but isn't necessarily fluid. RWD is a subset of that.