Just as some people here have said that it all depends on the coder / developer, I will also say that sometimes it can also depend on the client because some clients would want you to build them a Ferrari but would be willing to pay the equivalent of beer money

^^^ it doesn't depend on the coder jore . you consider the site's users. if its a student portal, chances are they'll be visiting from mobile platforms.

in ma opinion, it is the post above me that is making sense. employing RWD mostly depends on the target users. if a large portion of ur users are going to come from low-end mobile based on the service or product u have on offer, then a mobile site should cater for those.

i can nullify all the point raised by the op but i got no time to engage in useless fights .

instead i will advise the op to research on ADAPTIVE DESIGN and LAZY LOADING

Before i leave the scene, mobile site was in existence before RWD went viral. Google, Yahoo and Facebook built their mobile site before the era of RWD to cater for users who were on the go to access their account for updates. moreover, it was an era of low end mobile devices, not smartphones that are prevalent today which have capabilities of desktop/laptop.

Finally, there are a lot of things that u cannot as a user perform on mobile version of site, that u would be advised to use the full desktop version (even by the site owners).

romme2u:
in ma opinion, it is the post above me that is making sense. employing RWD mostly depends on the target users. if a large portion of ur users are going to come from low-end mobile based on the service or product u have on offer, then a mobile site should cater for those.

i can nullify all the point raised by the op but i got no time to engage in useless fights .

instead i will advise the op to research on ADAPTIVE DESIGN and LAZY LOADING

Before i leave the scene, mobile site was in existence before RWD went viral. Google, Yahoo and Facebook built their mobile site before the era of RWD to cater for users who were on the go to access their account for updates. moreover, it was an era of low end mobile devices, not smartphones that are prevalent today which have capabilities of desktop/laptop.

Finally, there are a lot of things that u cannot as a user perform on mobile version of site, that u would be advised to use the full desktop version (even by the site owners).

A responsive site isn't mobile friendly since it can't cater for low end mobile devices... Google launched Google plus in the Era of modern smartphones but believe me even Nokia 3110 will access G+ wella

seunoni34:

I quite agree with you bro. But it all depends on the designer afterall, I have seen websites that looks the same on both mobile and Desktop, just a little tweaking with Javascript and css media queries to swap position of sections as screen reduces and such sites still load with speed. Your point doesn't apply to all websites and I can give examples if you want.

Please I need help to prescribe the suitable webhost I can use for my website. I want my potential site to be based on musical downloads such as , notjustok.com that people can login to download musics.
I learnt webhosts varies with sizes of diskspaces and memories, that's why am seeking help before I fall victim of unkown.

romme2u:
in ma opinion, it is the post above me that is making sense. employing RWD mostly depends on the target users. if a large portion of ur users are going to come from low-end mobile based on the service or product u have on offer, then a mobile site should cater for those.

i can nullify all the point raised by the op but i got no time to engage in useless fights .

instead i will advise the op to research on ADAPTIVE DESIGN and LAZY LOADING

Before i leave the scene, mobile site was in existence before RWD went viral. Google, Yahoo and Facebook built their mobile site before the era of RWD to cater for users who were on the go to access their account for updates. moreover, it was an era of low end mobile devices, not smartphones that are prevalent today which have capabilities of desktop/laptop.

Finally, there are a lot of things that u cannot as a user perform on mobile version of site, that u would be advised to use the full desktop version (even by the site owners).

Please I need help to prescribe the suitable webhost I can use for my website. I want my potential site to be based on musical downloads such as , notjustok.com that people can login to download musics.
I learnt webhosts varies with sizes of diskspaces and memories, that's why am seeking help before I fall victim of unkown.

directonpc:

Optimising image is part of responsiveness? And don't you think it's server side that does the optimization?

Please I need help to prescribe the suitable webhost I can use for my website. I want my potential site to be based on musical downloads such as , notjustok.com that people can login to download musics.
I learnt webhosts varies with sizes of diskspaces and memories, that's why am seeking help before I fall victim of unkown.

goalburner:


Please I need help to prescribe the suitable webhost I can use for my website. I want my potential site to be based on musical downloads such as , notjustok.com that people can login to download musics.
I learnt webhosts varies with sizes of diskspaces and memories, that's why am seeking help before I fall victim of unkown.

Something with unlimited disk space and monthly bandwidth should do. Whogohost is good but they don't have unlimited packages

directonpc:

Something with unlimited disk space and monthly bandwidth should do. Whogohost is good but they don't have unlimited packages

Thank you for your reply.

Which webhost can you recommend for me with unlimited spaces?

Hostgator is quite good

goalburner:

Thank you for your reply.

Which webhost can you recommend for me with unlimited spaces?

FincoApps:
Hostgator is quite good

goalburner:
Thank you for your reply.Which webhost can you recommend for me with unlimited spaces?

Yeah its quite good but don't violate their terms, Last Month I had to quickly pull down a website of 300GB for a client who uses Hostgator, they gave him 3 days before they delete the Cpanel, plus customer support is bad..
You can try Godaddy or MyWindowsHost

thewebcraft:


Yeah its quite good but don't violate their terms, Last Month I had to quickly pull down a website of 300GB for a client who uses Hostgator, they gave him 3 days before they delete the Cpanel, plus customer support is bad..
You can try Godaddy or MyWindowsHost

Thank you Sir for the advice. I really appreciate.

But what type of terms violation your client must had committed for his 300GB website to be pulled down?

directonpc:
I seen a lot of webmasters on Nairaland over hyping responsive web design.
I am going to state 3 reasons why responsive design sucks and why you should take the stress of designing mobile versions of your site.
1. Responsive sites load slow on mobile and consumes users data(megabytes). This is very true as responsible sites download same high resolution contents that were designed for pc version of the site it only useless css to cut some put and change width and height for others.
Unlike responsive design a lite simple dedicated mobile version won't include contents that are heavy.

2. Less low-end device/browsers support. A responsive site might look good on high-end mobile devices and browsers but it is the opposite on opera mini and stock browser of older devices.

3 . Facebook, YouTube and google are not doing it so you should know that it is crappy. That is all and nobody can counter these points

.

For Me, these points doesn't sound like you are talking about responsive design at all, except the web developer. doesn't understand what it means then he can make the mistakes you mentioned.

1. "Responsive sites load slow on mobile and consumes users data(megabytes)." WTF?, it all depends on your site contents when designing a responsive site you have to add less sized images..

2. Less low-end device/browsers support. -- Every developer should know that opera and some other browsers do not support HTML5 so there is always a backup css for that.

3. Facebook, YouTube and google are not doing it - False why is there m.fb.com, m.youtube.com and m.google.com, this was created because it loads images in smaller quality and also some features has been removed....

goalburner:

Thank you Sir for the advice. I really appreciate.

But what type of terms violation your client must had committed for his 300GB website to be pulled down?

They sent an email saying a spam was detected on the website, they never replied our emails

thewebcraft:
.

For Me, these points doesn't sound like you are talking about responsive design at all, except the web developer. doesn't understand what it means then he can make the mistakes you mentioned.

1. "Responsive sites load slow on mobile and consumes users data(megabytes)." WTF?, it all depends on your site contents when designing a responsive site you have to add less sized images..

2. Less low-end device/browsers support. -- Every developer should know that opera and some other browsers do not support HTML5 so there is always a backup css for that.

3. Facebook, YouTube and google are not doing it - False why is there m.fb.com, m.youtube.com and m.google.com, this was created because it loads images in smaller quality and also some features has been removed....

Brother u are yet to make any solid point...
Your second point: css is not enough to control contents that you will rendering to mobile browsers if you are a true programmer u will know this. For example let's say you have a form that uses jquery onkeyup event for some manipulations these stuffs won't work on opera mini can css control that?

Your third point: m.fb.com is not responsive it supports my views

directonpc:

Brother u are yet to make any solid point...
Your second point: css is not enough to control contents that you will rendering to mobile browsers if you are a true programmer u will know this. For example let's say you have a form that uses jquery onkeyup event for some manipulations these stuffs won't work on opera mini can css control that?
Your third point: m.fb.com is not responsive it supports my views

"form that uses jquery onkeyup" how would css control that.?, Responsive design is more of Layout and less features.
m.facebook.com.

Exactly what I was thinking. Thewebcraft, the stuff you write prove you support what the OP is saying without knowing.

directonpc:

Brother u are yet to make any solid point...
Your second point: css is not enough to control contents that you will rendering to mobile browsers if you are a true programmer u will know this. For example let's say you have a form that uses jquery onkeyup event for some manipulations these stuffs won't work on opera mini can css control that?

Your third point: m.fb.com is not responsive it supports my views

I'm beginning to get really confused. But that's the OP's point

thewebcraft:


"form that uses jquery onkeyup" how would css control that.?, Responsive design is more of Layout and less features.
m.facebook.com.

Why didn't you guys call or try the Live chat ? They always reply

thewebcraft:

They sent an email saying a spam was detected on the website, they never replied our emails

FincoApps:
I'm beginning to get really confused. But that's the OP's point

"Why Responsive Design Sucks"? that's the argument.

thewebcraft:


"form that uses jquery onkeyup" how would css control that.?, Responsive design is more of Layout and less features.
m.facebook.com.

Since mobile friendliness isn't about layout alone hope you are convinced that responsive design ain't it.

All of your points are very valid, but you are only telling less than half of the story, i.e you only highlighted arguments against RWD. I can assure you arguments for RWD out weights those against, and I will mention just a few:

1) Device proliferation: There are dozen of device types with varied screen sizes, and many more are entering the market regularly. To make matters worse (or better depending on your perspective), based on screen sizes the distinctions between mobile and desktop are not so clear-cut any more (Are laptop 'mobile' or 'desktop'?): large screen phones, tablets of varying sizes, phablets, etc. So having just two strict versions of a website (mobile and desktop) just wouldn't do (try viewing a mobile version of a website on a large tablet to get what am saying). RWD is a clear winner here.

2) Cost: With separate versions of a website for mobile and desktop will essentially be creating and maintaining two websites with exactly the same content. So you are effectively doubling your cost and efforts.

3) SEO friendliness. With two versions of the same site each piece of content will have two urls thereby reducing the seo ranking factors of both.

4) The future favours RWD (even Google thinks so): Your argument relies heavily on resources downloads, like image sizes, for credibility. But techniques like image lazy loading (load without images, determine the browser environment and load the appropriate image), modernizr, the upcoming (or already here) picture tags, etc, makes the main point of your argument less credible.

RWD wins no matter how you look at it. Why would one choose an out-dated method (having a separate versions of the same website) over a strongly supported upcoming one? There's no argument here: RWD wins. QED.

www.icelark.com

directonpc:
Since mobile friendliness isn't about layout alone hope you are convinced that responsive design ain't it.

No

thewebcraft:
No

Hmm even without solid points to form an odd?

togbonna:
All of your points are very valid, but you are only telling less than half of the story, i.e you only highlighted arguments against RWD. I can assure you arguments for RWD out weights those against, and I will mention just a few:

1) Device proliferation: There are dozen of device types with varied screen sizes, and many more are entering the market regularly. To make matters worse (or better depending on your perspective), based on screen sizes the distinctions between mobile and desktop are not so clear-cut any more (Are laptop 'mobile' or 'desktop'?): large screen phones, tablets of varying sizes, phablets, etc. So having just two strict versions of a website (mobile and desktop) just wouldn't do (try viewing a mobile version of a website on a large tablet to get what am saying). RWD is a clear winner here.

2) Cost: With separate versions of a website for mobile and desktop will essentially be creating and maintaining two websites with exactly the same content. So you are effectively doubling your cost and efforts.

3) SEO friendliness. With two versions of the same site each piece of content will have two urls thereby reducing the seo ranking factors of both.

4) The future favours RWD (even Google thinks so): Your argument relies heavily on resources downloads, like image sizes, for credibility. But techniques like image lazy loading (load without images, determine the browser environment and load the appropriate image), modernizr, the upcoming (or already here) picture tags, etc, makes the main point of your argument less credible.

RWD wins no matter how you look at it. Why would one choose an out-dated method (having a separate versions of the same website) over a strongly supported upcoming one? There's no argument here: RWD wins. QED.

www.icelark.com

I accept that designing twice cost more (but if user experience is worth it then go for It)
On SEO even Google knows how to index sites that are rendered from different files without any hindrances in ranking. Instead you will even get better ranking for mobile search because their crawlers will spend less time downloading pages from the mobile version. (believe sites with different versions can do even better on SEO).

And finally it is not everything that is old that can be tagged outdated rendering multiple versions for your digital contents can never be an outdated practice.

Any serious digital business will be ready for coding multiple times just for best user experience

directonpc:

Hmm even without solid points to form an odd?

"solid points"? Where?

thewebcraft:

"solid points"? Where?

Hmm. Brother you convince people via solid points. Tho it's needless we all know responsive design if not really mobile friendly

goalburner:


Please I need help to prescribe the suitable webhost I can use for my website. I want my potential site to be based on musical downloads such as , notjustok.com that people can login to download musics.
I learnt webhosts varies with sizes of diskspaces and memories, that's why am seeking help before I fall victim of unkown.

try Hostgator.com

directonpc:
I seen a lot of webmasters on Nairaland over hyping responsive web design.
I am going to state 3 reasons why responsive design sucks and why you should take the stress of designing mobile versions of your site.
1. Responsive sites load slow on mobile and consumes users data(megabytes). This is very true as responsible sites download same high resolution contents that were designed for pc version of the site it only useless css to cut some put and change width and height for others.
Unlike responsive design a lite simple dedicated mobile version won't include contents that are heavy.

2. Less low-end device/browsers support. A responsive site might look good on high-end mobile devices and browsers but it is the opposite on opera mini and stock browser of older devices.

3 . Facebook, YouTube and google are not doing it so you should know that it is crappy. That is all and nobody can counter these points

Facebook and the others you mentioned have a lot of content on their pages that is exactly why responsive design is not an option for them (this does not make responsive design bad).

Small business websites, blogs etc. can still use responsive designs without any serious negative impact on site performance.

So the choice for whether to use responsive design or not depends on the type of website, then the amount of content and type of content.

Nairaland for example uses a Responsive Design, because of the amount and type of contents on its pages. Site speed is still great.

In conclusion RWD is great, but should not be used on heavy websites like some social networks. Mind you Facebook blog uses responsive design and creating and managing mobile versions can be very stressful.

Even Instagram for PC uses RWD.

#MyOpinion

enmacmedia:


Facebook and the others you mentioned have a lot of content on their pages that is exactly why responsive design is not an option for them (this does not make responsive design bad).

Small business websites, blogs etc. can still use responsive designs without any serious negative impact on site performance.

So the choice for whether to use responsive design or not depends on the type of website, then the amount of content and type of content.

Nairaland for example uses a Responsive Design, because of the amount and type of contents on its pages. Site speed is still great.

In conclusion RWD is great, but should not be used on heavy websites like some social networks. Mind you Facebook blog uses responsive design and creating and managing mobile versions can be very stressful.

Even Instagram for PC uses RWD.

#MyOpinion

Nairaland doesn't even have a pc version because what I see on pc looks like opening a mobile site on pc.

And good thing you stated the limitation of responsive design not handling heavy sites well (it sucks at that side then)

directonpc:

Nairaland doesn't even have a pc version because what I see on pc looks like opening a mobile site on pc.

seun directonpc don finish you kpatakpata. they say common PC version, Africa's number one forum nor get

Nmeri17:
seun directonpc don finish you kpatakpata. they say common PC version, Africa's number one forum nor get

Lol. Did I just say that? I regret it and tender my apologies.