Hacker News Reader

Comment by jshen | Hacker News Reader

It's much harder to do it in photoshop for things like responsive design. Responsive is dynamic and fluid and it's very difficult to capture that in a few static comps. I like this point about web design is very relevant to Ive's point. Apple isn't perfect, and the fact that Apple does web design a certain way doesn't mean other ways aren't clearly better and closer to the values Ive is discussing. Trying to use apple.com on your phone should lead one to the conclusion that apple isn't doing modern web design well.

View on HN

>It's much harder to do it in photoshop for things like responsive design.

Then again responsive in the web is a co-out and a fad -- instead of creating the best experience for each screen size, you give them some sliding or expanding divs and some dissapearing elements from the "full-on" design and call it a day.

I've never seen a responsive page I like on a mobile device. I'd take the full page, in which I can pan and zoom, anytime.

I've seen a number of responsive designs I like better than the full page of a regular site. Compare the following sites to using this site, HN, on a phone.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com

http://video.disney.com

For a site that would be much better with a responsive design look at

http://nytimes.com

I'd draw a parallel to storyboarding for animation here [1]. Most storyboarding artists get their start as animators themselves, so they know the "form and the material and process," so to speak. But when they do storyboarding work, they need to work in an agile and rapid fashion, to consider a user's flow through the "application" at such a high level that they would be hindered by trying to draw every single detail. Should they know innately what is and is not feasible to animate? Absolutely! But this does not mean that they should use the same tools and techniques as animators to perform their work.

Responsive may be difficult to capture in static comps, but when these comps can be made much more quickly, attention can be given to user experience overall, not just isolated fragments of user interface. And it's difficult to deny Apple's success at driving conversions and purchases.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storyboard

I don't know. The top two most frustrating things I encounter on modern web sites are: "infinite" scrolling effects & badly done responsive designs.

While adaptive UI can be done right (and yes, that's the correct name for it, "responsive" typically refers to reaction lag, not screen size), and is definitely a nice tool in the designer's toolbox, it's very telling that various "responsive evangelists" keep popping out of everywhere talking about the virtues of "responsive" where no one asked them. Say like the poster I was replying to here.

This behavior is typical for something at peak hype. They're just so excited about it, they can't comprehend why everyone isn't getting a boner about "responsive" so they have to talk about it non-stop to clue us in on the awesomeness we're allegedly missing. It's like Ruby on Rails all over again.

Which is to say the "responsive" movement right now is 80% bullshit and 20% useful technique (when used in moderation). And I have examples to support that.

Part of "responsive" is the horrible practice of rolling menus into obscure hamburger buttons, outright hiding panels with useful content and functionality, or presenting bizarre interaction patterns that some harebrained designer thought are more smartphone-ey.

This is not helping your users, it's pissing them off and making them spend a lot of time hunting for the "desktop version" link on your site.

"And I have examples to support that."

Do give them.

"This is not helping your users, it's pissing them off and making them spend a lot of time hunting for the "desktop version" link on your site."

Not for the site I worked on. When we switched to responsive mobile use skyrocketed on our site.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com