Correct. That's exactly my issue with it. That means that every page on the website has to be designed to work on my retina iMac (that's a 5k screen) and my Blackberry Bold (that's a 4:3 tiny screen). Responsive dictates that I must use the same website, stylesheets, etc on both of those devices, even though they're entirely different mediums that are used in entirely different ways.
I think this is because it matters more to their vendors than it does to them.
Once again Uncle Joe comes through in the clutch! Thanks for the clarification and for the links - very informative.Someone show me a car shopper that ever does this:
From this, we non-technical people conclude "thats cool, I can see it, this looks superior".
For me, its really simple. Responsive is the end game where we're all going, but, responsive has performance problems that are being worked out. Adaptive is a stepping stone to responsive.
Anyone loyal to amazon has watched them evolve. They started adaptive (low risk) and now are woking in responsive elements into the UI.
Lastly, Google has ZERO problems with adaptive sites (vs responsive).
View attachment 2402
Yes, see amazon.com, it began as an adaptive site, that is evolving into a hybrid.So when a vendor indicates that they have a blended version of responsive and adaptive...is that possible?