TAKE POLL Responsive [RWD] or Adaptive [AWD] ?

[Arley McBlain]

A major consideration in favor of RWD (vs mobile specific) is the fact that Google "recommends" it. They punish site ranking when mobile and desktop experiences don't feature the same page/content structure.

As for AWD, using % over px gives a way safer fall-back for new devices; it really gives a much greater predictability on devices you haven't tested on (there may be a few), while making the best use of screen space. I've been building responsive sites since 2010 and would argue that RWD can be faster to develop than AWD with a solid CSS grid system in place!

 

[ed.brooks]

A major consideration in favor of RWD (vs mobile specific) is the fact that Google "recommends" it. They punish site ranking when mobile and desktop experiences don't feature the same page/content structure.

As for AWD, using % over px gives a way safer fall-back for new devices; it really gives a much greater predictability on devices you haven't tested on (there may be a few), while making the best use of screen space. I've been building responsive sites since 2010 and would argue that RWD can be faster to develop than AWD with a solid CSS grid system in place!

Arlie - I had not heard that Google punishes site ranking if a website doesn't use responsive. in fact the official stance is that Google does not favor any particular format "as long as the page(s) and all page assets are accessible to all Googlebot user-agents."

In fact, Google has said that if you offer device-specific functionality, they love it. Perhaps that is one reason big properties like Amazon, Apple and AutoTrader have gone with adaptive.

But responsive is quicker and cheaper...

 

[Arley McBlain]

I didn't say punishes non-responsive, you misunderstood me. What I mean is if you click on a website's "About Us" search result, but that redirects mobile users to the mobile landing page - that gets punished. They don't want mobile users to get some lesser site with half the content. If a website runs distinct mobile and desktop versions there's a lot of work in keeping them both 1:1. RWD solves this by keeping 1 URL, 1 codebase, and 1 set of content to maintain.

 

[ed.brooks]

So responsive is easier and cheaper, but not necessarily better.

 

[carpages]

So responsive is easier and cheaper, but not necessarily better.

Ed, in my experience, "better" has much more to do with the people building and designing than whether they opt to use RWD or AWD. There are plenty of really bad websites designed with RWD. There are plenty of really bad websites designed with AWD.

 

[joe.pistell]

EDIT:

Ed, in my experience, "better" has much more to do with the people building and designing than whether they opt to use RWD or AWD. There are plenty of really bad websites designed with RWD. There are plenty of really bad websites designed with AWD.

I agree Ben,

Mobile design winners need to design for Internet on the go.


Mobile is all about "MicroCopy"



Mobile is NOT a full version of a Desktop site, users want an optimized experience. Mobile Context Examples:

• Finance Form: Present a 5 line finance form, link to full length if needed.
• Trade-in Form: Mobile user is out at the car. Have shopper send a walk around WITH PICS.

 

[craigh]

I agree Ben,

I think you should quote the point you agree with - go back a page and Ben is fighting for putting all desktop content into responsive pages for mobile. ie: the long-as-hell finance form shows up on your phone.

 

[craigh]

I didn't say punishes non-responsive, you misunderstood me. What I mean is if you click on a website's "About Us" search result, but that redirects mobile users to the mobile landing page - that gets punished. They don't want mobile users to get some lesser site with half the content. If a website runs distinct mobile and desktop versions there's a lot of work in keeping them both 1:1. RWD solves this by keeping 1 URL, 1 codebase, and 1 set of content to maintain.

There's a fairly simple solution to this: same routes on all devices.

1. Route is /about-us
2. Server detects mobile device
3. Server loads mobile theme
4. Content is entered into the "yields" for content

It's a completely different theme with the same content. It also allows me to specifically override a page with mobile content when I know it's not a mobile friendly page or form. The focus here is ensuring that the CMS my clients use allows them to safely control their own content without an expertise in RWD.

Google still marks it as mobile-friendly and a bunch of these sites are out ranking competitors with responsive sites. I don't believe RWD vs AWD holds that much weight with Google's search. I believe it affects your mobile rank in a small way, but maybe 5% of the overall weighted formula.

 

[joe.pistell]

In 2013, 9 out of 10 are AWD.

​

In 2015, 9 out of 10 are AWD (with responsive elements)
RWD is device centered Design
AWD is conversion centered design

Where is the discussion of BUSINESS RISK? AWD VS RWD must explore the dark side of both.

 

[craigh]

Responsive Elements is key. Websites should always have this, but not adapting to devices to offer a better experience seems more like a lazy approach. I think one of the problems we run into here is that people (not you, Joe) tend to read all about Responsive Website Design from companies that do single page websites, non-commerce sites, software as a service, etc. How this applies to automotive websites is not the same way it applies to something like a task management web application.

If you have an iPhone, I want to give you an iPhone experience.
If you have an iPad, I want to give you an iPad experience.
If you have a Mac, I want to give you a desktop experience.
etc etc.

It's not that I make 12 websites, I just have 2 or 3 options and choose the one closest suited to what you're doing. I would rather have that then 1 that has to fit everything. It's only "easier" to do responsive if you're doing a half-assed job of it IMHO.