[brazzledazzle]

In the case of hover-based UIs is it more about common functionality? You can tap/click on both platforms, so is it easier to develop a single UI? One that uses the capabilities they have in common vs developing a unique interface for each device type?

[justuk]

It feels like desktop is taking a hit for the team because a less sophisticated member is tagging along. I watch all these websites convert over to responsive designs and very few of them are a step forward. It's like they've gone from tools aimed at adults to toys for children.

[charlesarthur]

What's happened is that they've gone to "sites with smaller viewports and less precise input methods because they don't have a mouse and keyboard attached". And in case it had also passed you by, mobile is the predominant method of browsing for a huge number of sites all over the world.

Consider Google, which says that mobile search outnumbers desktop in 10 major countries. Do you hear Larry Page moaning about how people are using the "wrong" method to access the site? Nope. Instead, Google rejigged its algorithm to favour "mobile-friendly" sites. So let's see, that ranges you, preferring desktop, against Google, monitoring the direction of travel. Think I'd bet with the latter.

You can bemoan the way that mobile input has to adapt. Or you can revel in the way that smart UX designers figure the best way to adapt, as outlined in the original post. I know which I prefer.

[simoncion]

> ...sites with smaller viewports...

Every smartphone sold in America in the last four years has a far higher screen resolution than the machine on which I first browsed the internet back in the 1990s. Indeed, most of them have a higher screen resolution than the laptop on which I regularly browse the internet today!

So, no, the viewports on mobile devices aren't really smaller.

It is -however- very true that one's input method is substantially less precise than when using a mouse. But, it's not that much less precise than when using a pen or stylus. :)

> Instead, Google rejigged its algorithm to favour "mobile-friendly" sites.

Sure. But, OP is not talking about Google's search ranking algorithm. Google didn't make dumbed-down versions of the UI of their sites because folks are mostly visiting with finger-navigated devices. Until recently, Google worked hard to make UIs that are both full-featured and useful for folks navigating with a mouse and with their finger.

[dragonwriter]

> Every smartphone sold in America in the last four years has a far higher screen resolution than the machine on which I first browsed the internet back in the 1990s. Indeed, most of them have a higher screen resolution than the laptop on which I regularly browse the internet today!

A good point, and important to keep in mind.

> So, no, the viewports on mobile devices aren't really smaller.

Except, in the ways that they are. A 5" 4K display is still literally a smaller viewport than a 13" 1366x768 display or a 20" 1920x1080 display, and this is quite important in design.

[simoncion]

Hnnh. Everywhere I've seen the word "viewport" used, it has referred to the number of pixels on the screen, along with the aspect ratios of both the pixels, and the screen itself. I dabbled in OpenGL a long way back; this is probably where I was first introduced to the term.

I would call the concept which you are calling "viewport", "screen". e.g. "This phone has a much smaller screen than this nice desktop monitor."

[BonoboBoner]

> mobile is the predominant method of browsing for a huge number of sites all over the world.

That is not an excuse to give up on high information density on the desktop, just because your headings have to be ridicoulessly big for mobile.