There has been alot of movement in “responsive HTML” over the last 2 years. Basically, responsive means that the page will morph as the screen gets smaller. It changes to use the available space more effectively. All the way down to the phone browser level, it changes fonts, image sizes, padding, etc etc. All to make the experience optimal for that sized screen.
In 1997, I lamented about how hard it was to deal with Netscape and Internet Explorer and their versions, plus 640×480, 800×600 and 1024×768. Now there are three major browsers that update every 3 months on hundreds of screen sizes. The matrix has gone up exponentially. How do you QA something like this? How is this sustainable?
I was trying to design a page editor application that gave a non-programmer power to make responsive pages using as much WYSIWYG UI as possible. It’s incredibly complex. There are so many variations and approaches.
Responsive HTML Templates work best when your layout/content scope is going to remain static. A blog is a good example where you know the structure is not going to move around much. It sucks when your layout is changing all the time, like a public website or even an application of moderate-high complexity. If I was making a portfolio site, I would definitely consider a responsive template to get me started.
It’s good to stay on top of the latest trends, but this one feels like it is highly unsustainable by mere mortals. It’s the best we have at this time. I wonder what layout strategy we will take 10 years from now.
Not the most insightful blog post, but it was on my mind. Besides, how will you know the good posts from the bad if they are all good.