Responsive vs. Mobile only?
 

So, I'm getting ready to do some more pre-fabs and I know responsive is the hot shit, but I want to ask people who are actually using the stuff if you prefer a responsive design or to have a separate one geared toward mobile? I get that the responsive is cool for ease of updating with only one presentation to worry about, but with mobile traffic being as important as it is, I feel like REALLY tailoring a design for it would be better for business.

Am I daft?

I dont get this question in 2016. Why do you need 2 different versions? Responsive IS the mobile/tablet/everything design. It IS tailored.

You can show/hide divs or change their elements based on browser size.

You should not have a need for 2 designs ever. Anyone who tells you different does not know what they are doing.

What he said.

Showing my geezerhood there. Thanks for the blunt answer.

All good just trying to give you a straight to the point answer so you don't waste time doing something that is not needed.

Just make sure to get someone who knows what they are doing when it comes to responsive. You don't want to end up with code that has an extra 1000 lines just to call it "responsive". That defeats the purpose.

@media is your friend!

As mentioned above, just show or hide divs depending on the screen size.
The times of separate mobiles sites are long over. Besides, some of the newer phones coming out have a higher screen resolution's than some surfers computers.

If your looking for some assistance, send me a PM!

Thanks Maxx. I'm real good with coding stuff for Elevated X, but I'll need to work with someone to make the designs good and proper responsive. I wouldn't mind partnering or paying someone to take what I make and do them right for that.

+1 Responsive

Yep :thumbsup:2 cents::2 cents:

Bootstrap is the best way to go for a framework now.

Definitely responsive. The accordion design rules now.

For affiliate sites or landing pages of all types = responsive.

For actual sellers pages (e.g. sponsors) and other e-commerce or subscriber sites, even ad supported news sites or other = separate desktop and mobile optimized websites.

If you want to convert and retain customers you must deliver an optimized user experience (UX). The best utilization of a customer's screen ''real estate'' and his device's interface are what make money in the end sale where the profit center is.

Our cam site, and other webcam industry competitors prove this strategy out as well as people like; Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon and almost all other e-commerce sites. These e-commerce sites all use device versioning for a reason.

We understand what it takes to get the customer's interest and revenue.

If you earn your living off SEO and referring to a sponsor it really would be more efficient and cost beneficial for you to refer the traffic and let us carry the load and funnel the traffic where it would best convert. SEO criterion demand universal utility regardless of device ... SEO traffic metrics employed for ranking are very different from the goals of getting the customer's money, i.e.; the end sale.

I made a new responsive site and on Google's mobile compatibility test, it gets a 95-99, I forget exactly, and the only thing it doesn't like is the search button on the top because some people have fat fingers.
Should I say "screw you Google" or take it out? Making it bigger doesn't look too great, though..

I understand there is always a place for enterprise level development, especially with companies as big as netflix.... I have to ask you though, do you think this analysis applies to the guy who started the tread?

As a number of posters have stated for a small to medium sized website a responsive solution is perfect. One poster bought up bootstrap (check out bootstrap 4 BETA, looks awesome). Bootstrap is great launch point for many business.

If your not one of the largest bandwidth suckers on the web, which few here on GFY are I still believe you can deliver a great customer experience with a single responsive website, if delivered correctly.

Please correct me if I am wrong, I would be interested.

Check out Stackoverflow.
There is an easy solution to that.

That "fat fingers" thing is basically showing in case two words are tooclose to each other, regardless is it vertical or horizontal. You just need to play with css to make that work, but i was not able to do it perfect, in some cases it just cannot be perfect due layout/content type.

And here is example:

Bad: BLABLABLALBA
BLA BLA BLA BLA

Good:: BLA BLA BLA BLA

BLA BLA BLA BLA

Oh that! Ok I misunderstood. Yup, that's fat finger syndrome. Less carbs cures that shit.

I though you were talking about search function recognition.

My bad!

What about seo if you have 2 site versions instead of 1 responsive?

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

I have never seen a bigger idiot on here continually try so hard and say NOTHING each and every time. Fuck off with your fluff, he had a real question,

[QUOTE=maxxadult;20749924]
...

Sorry, I must be above your pay grade.

@ meta go fuck yourself-- no one else probably will. Your shift a the 7-11 starts at 8 PM.

Does anyone actually work with this idiot?

I couldn't imagine the horror of spending time attempting to communicate with someone who is full of such fluff:

Client: Lets go with a white background!

Barry: Since 1985 pearl white which is based on IBMs original logo has been the choice for go to pro media marketers. The tone in which white appears on the eye is that in which top "med" eye doctors of pristine universities. In turn showcase the best "blanco" also as it's known in Spain to "Spaniards". Are in which the best background may be chosen to those that seek a professional -- experience.

LOSER

:warning:warning:warning WARNING :warning:warning:warning

Do not attempt to engage in an intelligent conversation with Barry-x-losercam! He is well known for saying NOTHING in as many BIG WORDS he can search out in the thesaurus.

Do not communicate with Barry, Do not pass go, lose "$200" by doing so.

Again it depends on what you want to accomplish.

SEO and UX (user experience) do not work that well together in spite of Googly Goop talk.

You can prove this yourself. Search a site that has 2 versions. The first search with a PC and the second with a mobile device.

Think of the major websites. Your actual content and other algorithmic signals will determine your ranking, in theory. Most SEO on the web you read is 98% bullshit.

Agreed and you're another wannabe falling into the 98%.

Google said that they would prefer people to be using a responsive layout. But at least as of right now, their algorithm does not care whether it is responsive or a separate mobile site, it's only worried about the mobile compatibility and the UX just like any other website..

Use common sense, though, you know. I don't want to have to explain it all...

Um no. It is not "ok" having a mobile version. It is wrong. You are spreading out your inbound links for 0 reason. Yes they do "care".

Plus if you think google likes their users being redirected all over the place you are very fooled.

Do you guys own websites? It's like you guys are 5 years in the past.

Just saying what Google said about it once.. But yeah, responsive is the only way you should be building for mobile. Mobile users usually hate mobile versions of websites, especially when a lot of times webmasters leave out info and functionality when making two separate sites..

About them "not caring" I meant as far as being responsive or a separate mobile site alone as a metric.

Horses for courses. I have 600 casino games on my desktop site and only 40 on my mobile.

All my other sites are responsive.

Responsive does not work too well for Amazon but it would probably for Netflix.
Amazon's mobile app and mobile website are just too hard to use IMHO compared their full desktop version. I think feature complexity is the issue. Yeah, you are absolutely right -- 600/40 -- and don't make mobile too difficult -- the customer will not buy.

Also, there is the touchpoint mess that some responsive sites make with a one-size-fits-all approach.

You have to a<=>b test these things and find what is right for your user first.

@coolmike I don't, and haven't worked for Google in years: I work for my customers' satisfaction -- I want their money :2 cents:

I can just throw Google a bone and buy some AdWords.

But in theory: If you customers like what you have -- they will tell Google -- that is the best SEO in the long term.

I agree with everything meta has said so far. It's quite straightforward and it is strange to see so many other outdated opinions stated as fact in this thread. Responsive is what you want. Check out progressive development using something like Web starter kit to take things even further.

To the people making themes or templates for mechbunny or WordPress, please start minimizing and optimizing your assets. Tired of having to go through and remove 10 bootstrap javascript files you aren't even using in the design and minimizing everything.

Website site = responsive
Moblie only = dedicated apps for OS

Why isn't GFY responsive, then?...

I'm guessing the main reasoning is vbulletins template structure would be considered out of date these days. Instead of trying to go through and figure out every single template piece and make it responsive. It's much easier to just build the second version from the ground up.

Just like anything I'm sure there is extreme cases where something could be applied. But for 99.9% of people, if you're doing it properly it does not.

You're completely retarded. You should be spending your time optimizing your responsive layout, not a-b testing outdated versions of your website.

More like you have NEVER worked for google. Stop trying to imply that.

Ya you WANT clients' money and you are willing to play pretend at their expense. Asshole. I feel bad for anyone buying your shit.

Look at GFY mobile and GFY desktop and get back with me ... d'oh

@candyflip
apps or HTML5?
apps are native code, ergo: you would need separate apps for iOs and Andriod, that costs in both development and maintenance updating.

It may work a bit better but is it cost effective in the long run?

HTML5 will be more stable in longevity (I hope).

Again, if you do not have complex tasks the best route is a CMS and a responsive site or WordPress. Even simple apps if you can distribute them in Googleplay.

aside: Did you read about the porn clicker apps in Googleplay ? You have to have branding and reputation in adult to do apps that will be successful long term.

@meta LMAO

We do millions in revenue every month. Since 2006

How much do you do a month . Can you pay your rent on time?

What websites do you successfully operate?

Who the fuck are you besides a brainless legend in your own mind.

This isn't Twitter @idiot.

You're a funny guy. "We" do millions. YOU do nothing. Figure out the difference.

So far in this thread I see only people agreeing with me (the person who is right). And 0 agreeing with you (the person who posts fluff for a living). Kindly SUCK IT.

I don't understand why there is even an argument. Meta is correct. Also regarding apps, you can build cross platform desktop and mobile apps using electron and other frameworks using html,css,javascript and node. They take care of porting to different OS for you to minimize cost and ease of development.

Barry-loverep has a lot of personal issues. He always tries to sound profound on every subject no matter how simple the answer is. Or how greatly he mis-understands the topic. Im embarassed for him to be honest.

Do you build mobile first or desktop down? If you're just hiding divs doesn't the content load anyways causing mobile to load unnecessary content and using more bandwidth?