Did you know that only 50% of users actually have their browser windows at full maximum width. The other 50% don't actually have it at full width. So the idea of having max/min allows us developers to create custom widths with different window sizes even if someone like myself who is on a 1440 x 900 resolution but have my browser size at 1142 x 721. So I would actually see a smaller version of the design than a maximum screen resolution.
This gives us a greater control over the layout. It can be daunting and difficult at first to develop in this environment. The screen resolution can be a headache with so many sizes to think about especially if you are building for mobiles in mind. The biggest problem is testing I find getting hold of devices to test on to be difficult, as we already have issues getting hold of older browsers. As Joseph mentioned users won't necessary be scaling their browsers up and down to see the results but more so when they aren't actually seeing things at full width they will evidently see a smaller slim down version if they were to increase their browser window they should see a change in layout if you have set the min/max width. So there is a small chance of users flexing their browser windows at times. One major draw back if any of you have noticed is when you *zoom in*. Have you noticed using media queries with min/max width when you zoom in the layout changes as the browser thinks your resolution has changed which alters the layout. I for one find this a limitation and annoying especially for users wanting to zoom into a specific section or want to enlarge font size this really hurts in terms of accessibility. This is another jumping stone for us web developers with new technology seems to come with more complexity and more constraints to think about. I am excited about this and it will take time to fully master this new feature. I have no doubt that within the next year or two majority of sites will conform to this new responsive approach. Steven Wu Freelance Web Developer +44 (0)7540599163 Skype: cyberpunkstudio www.designtodevelop.com On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Joseph Taylor <j...@sitesbyjoe.com> wrote: > ** > Tee, > > I agree with your thinking regarding a desktop user getting the 320px wide > layout. It can seem silly. At the same time, responsive design isn't > supposed to be something "visible" but something "invisible". > > I doubt desktop users are ever resizing their browser windows and gasping > in astonishment when the layout conforms. Table and fluid layouts have been > doing this always and no one has ever cared then either as a user. > > Responsive developers are the only ones scaling the browser in and out and > checking the results. > > Yeah, there are a bunch of items that are frustrating with responsive > design - especially if your fighting to get an element to change from one > layout to another with out weirdness. > > I've only made one responsive site so far and I had to really "dumb it > down" to get used to the work method itself, the order I should be doing > things, trying to gear for mobile first. I'm in the midst of a ton of > experimentation. > > Here's the site so far if my own code can help you at all: > http://jacque.sitesbyjoe.com > > I wouldn't user this building method on a client site unless they > specifically wanted it at this point or until I figure out some more tricks > to working this way. Would I offer it? Heck yes. I want to master the style > and I'm sure you do too. > > Keep at it. > > *Joseph R. B. Taylor* > *Web Designer/Developer* > -------------------------------------- > Sites by Joe > *"Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design* > Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com > Phone: (508) 840-9657 > Email: j...@sitesbyjoe.com > > On 9/25/11 5:38 PM, tee wrote: > > I would love to hear what other think about the approach for device-width vs > max/min width. > > For myself, I have done a couple sites targeting device-width and really > think this is better approach. The hype about responsive design got me to try > out the max/min width approach, I find that I need to tackle more the the > window resizes (and this means writing more CSS rules means penalizing > touchscreen device user), and the experience can be quite awful seeing it > from desktop browser. > > I'm sort of in a defeated mood right now, really feel that except the ego to > show off, I'm unable to find a convincing reason that desktop user needs to > be given a "responsive website" anything smaller than 800px. > > tee > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > ******************************************************************* > > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > ******************************************************************* > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
