To interact with this page you must login.
Signup
society
understand
Should users be forced into a responsive design (without the ability to opt out)?
There is nothing worse than getting automatically redirected to a mobile version of a site, and not having (or not easily finding) a "view normal site" link. It's not just that the mobile site is a scaled down version of the normal site, it's the unfamiliarity - the sudden 1-dimensionality of what used to be a 2-dimensional page and the obscene amount of scrolling required. The previous mental map of the site is no longer accurate.
It is technically possible to allow users a "desktop/mobile" toggle to escape a frustrating responsive implementation by basing responsiveness off of both viewport size and a "trigger" css class.
Below are the estimated viewport overlays of an iPhone and a desktop view on the responsive Boston Globe site:
On the Boston Globe site (the oft-cited shining example of responsive design), I find the amount of scrolling to be extremely painful if I am not looking to read in a linear fashion. With the retina display on an iPhone, the desktop version would be discernible and immediately navigable with a quick tap-zoom to any location of the page. As with most responsive designs, the "view normal site" option is not available.
Should users be forced into a responsive design? Should they be able to toggle if off to "view normal site"? Basing responsiveness off of a combination of media query and toggle-able "responsive" class could give the best of both worlds.
---
We have discussed this in the UX community at http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/20824/should-users-be-forced-into-a-responsive-design-without-the-ability-to-opt-out and would be interested in the counterpoint or affirmation of the conclusion of "No. Opt out would be optimal".
It is technically possible to allow users a "desktop/mobile" toggle to escape a frustrating responsive implementation by basing responsiveness off of both viewport size and a "trigger" css class.
Below are the estimated viewport overlays of an iPhone and a desktop view on the responsive Boston Globe site:
On the Boston Globe site (the oft-cited shining example of responsive design), I find the amount of scrolling to be extremely painful if I am not looking to read in a linear fashion. With the retina display on an iPhone, the desktop version would be discernible and immediately navigable with a quick tap-zoom to any location of the page. As with most responsive designs, the "view normal site" option is not available.
Should users be forced into a responsive design? Should they be able to toggle if off to "view normal site"? Basing responsiveness off of a combination of media query and toggle-able "responsive" class could give the best of both worlds.
---
We have discussed this in the UX community at http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/20824/should-users-be-forced-into-a-responsive-design-without-the-ability-to-opt-out and would be interested in the counterpoint or affirmation of the conclusion of "No. Opt out would be optimal".
societyunderstand
If you have to opt out of it, you're doing it wrong.