Hi Colin,
I'm attempting my first Responsive web site and have been getting stuck here
and there so when I read your email I purchased the book.
I'm really enjoying it and it points out quite a few things that I had not been
aware of. For me this is wonderful reading.
Thank you for letting the
Le 23 août 2013 à 23:58, Tim Arnold a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Mike O'Toole wrote:
>>
>> FYI only recently has the 'smart phone' (all MQ capable) sales passed the
>> 'feature phone' in sales percentage.
>>
>> Many present day low end 'feature phones' and most older (sold i
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Norman Fournier
wrote:
> If you're in a sharing mood, Tom, it would be great if you would post your
> solutions to this mailing list, and we could all benefit from your hard work
> ;-)
>
> On 2013-08-23, at 10:24 AM, Tom Livingston wrote:
Like I said, this is l
If you're in a sharing mood, Tom, it would be great if you would post your
solutions to this mailing list, and we could all benefit from your hard work ;-)
On 2013-08-23, at 10:24 AM, Tom Livingston wrote:
> FWIW, what I do is repeat my styles without MQ's inside a conditional
> comment. Lo-fi,
7;Toole
Subject: Re: [css-d] Implementing Responsive Design
FWIW, what I do is repeat my styles without MQ's inside a conditional comment.
Lo-fi, I know, but if you don't want to load a polyfil, this is another option.
I use sass imports to do this in a neat way. Emai
FWIW, what I do is repeat my styles without MQ's inside a conditional comment.
Lo-fi, I know, but if you don't want to load a polyfil, this is another option.
I use sass imports to do this in a neat way. Email me if you want any more
info.
—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Mike O'Toole wrote:
>
> FYI only recently has the 'smart phone' (all MQ capable) sales passed the
> 'feature phone' in sales percentage.
>
> Many present day low end 'feature phones' and most older (sold in 2009-2012)
> 'feature phones' lack the MQ support.
>
>
Adam Ambrus wrote:
> on the topic of mobile-first vs desktop-first, there is an alternative -
> the goldilocks approach[1], which sits right in the middle, i'd say.
I like it, and I like the demo. through which it presents itself, but
why, when I extend my browser window across both monitors, t
IMHO, mobile-first is the right way to go. My experience in
desktop-down has been unpleasant to say the least. To me, mobile-first
makes sense. If a mobile device doesn't understand MQ's, then you're
in trouble with a desktop-down site. If you're going to spend the
effort to do a responsive site, y
i think it's a good way of thinking, the limited space does force you to
go minimal and abstract as much as possible with your content and how
you present it.
on the topic of mobile-first vs desktop-first, there is an alternative -
the goldilocks approach[1], which sits right in the middle, i'
FYI only recently has the 'smart phone' (all MQ capable) sales passed
the 'feature phone' in sales percentage.
Many present day low end 'feature phones' and most older (sold in
2009-2012) 'feature phones' lack the MQ support.
As of mid 2013 many high end 'feature phones' are MQ capable. FWIW
Hi Colin,
Yeah that approach is called "mobile first". It's gotten to be really popular. A
few months ago though I read a good article call "Desktop First" that argued the
opposite approach...but I can't find it again (I'll keep looking).
BTW - when was that book published? I thought most mobile U
12 matches
Mail list logo
