So we are in an area where 4G and High Speed are not always readily available - will users experience load time issues with a responsive or adaptive site...especially on a 3G or slower wireless connection?
TAKE POLL Responsive [RWD] or Adaptive [AWD] ?
- Thread starter eddyshaf
- Start date
But since shoppers are conducting very different activities, depending on the device (as this study shows), shouldn't adaptive hold the upper hand?
http://digitalsolutions.autotrader....rader.com-Multi-Device-Car-Shopping-Study.pdf
http://digitalsolutions.autotrader....rader.com-Multi-Device-Car-Shopping-Study.pdf
It could. They're going to load desktop assets and scale them down. Browser detection is often done on the client side, so it makes it difficult to provide different assets for different devices.
This is another of the reasons that I believe in adaptive.
Responsive is a trend at the moment - I believe it will eventually become the norm, but even then I believe that there should be 4 websites; Mobile, Tablet, Desktop, Kiosk. Each one should be responsive, but I don't think your mobile website and your desktop website should have identical assets, videos, service forms, etc.
Our service form works on mobile, but I would much rather see a simpler version tailored to mobile (currently in testing). http://www.oakridgeford.com/departments/service - this page is an adaptive theme loading a responsive page - obviously needs work.
- Apr 7, 2009
- 4,858
- 2,303
- Awards
- 10
- First Name
- Joe
Ed, for me, this is the 800lb Gorilla. It's exactly why amazon (and others) didn't jump into responsive. Few people deeply understand device context. IMO, you have to nail this 1st before you cement yourself into a new tech that may complicate and color your design feedback.
- May 1, 2005
- 4,568
- 1,840
- Awards
- 12
- First Name
- Jeff
Remeber - the title of your forum thread is like the subject line of an email campaign. The better the subject line, the better your open rate.
Ed, It was cool and industry relavant to use AWD or RWD, but I'm sure it hindered your view rate. Hence the slow return on feedback from the community.
Advice to the community - think through the title of your post before clicking submit.
- May 1, 2005
- 4,568
- 1,840
- Awards
- 12
- First Name
- Jeff
- Apr 29, 2011
- 505
- 262
- Awards
- 7
- First Name
- Chris
They'll typically experience more issues with a responsive site. The reason is that a responsive site is sending back a payload (images, javascript, css, etc.) for ALL devices. Based on the size of the viewport (screen) it will show specific content. But all that HTML markup, say for your normal navigation and your mobile navigation is sent back together in one file. In the case of adaptive, it will send back only what is needed for that specific device. It's much more efficient and it allows for a much better UI if the vendor really cares about that sort of thing.
In the case of a vehicle details page or a search results page, a responsive site is sending back ~50% of HTML markup that's not even used. If you're showing 20-50 cars per page, that can add up quickly.
With dealer websites, for me the holy grail is a desktop site that can be sized down appropriately for tablets (iPads). Then a mobile layout that is done right. It's the hybrid approach like @craigh mentioned. So far I haven't seen a vendor hit a home run with the mobile site. I've seen one or two say they have, but they're probably one of the most un-usable mobile sites I've come across :/
One of the other issues I've seen with the mobile sites so far is the designers forgot that mobile devices have touch screens
I want to swipe through the photos. So far I haven't seen a vendor hit a home run with the mobile site. I've seen one or two say they have, but they're probably one of the most un-usable mobile sites I've come across :/
One of the other issues I've seen with the mobile sites so far is the designers forgot that mobile devices have touch screens
Agreed. And I admit my own team is on that list as well. We are overhauling our mobile sites entirely with a mobile-first strategy because what we have now is the "bare minimum" for a mobile site. It's light years better than many options, but it's not something I'm about to stamp my name on and call "done".
