I am all for content-first strategies. The problem with this approach though, is it seems all the tools and libraries available are optimised for layout-first grids. Right now it seems like each developer is on their own, having to read generic advice and apply it on a case-by-case basis.
I wonder if it is possible to distill a finite number of content types from the wide spectrum of content in the wild? It would seem like this is a necessary step towards being able to offer advice, tools and libraries that are both practical and specific.
PS. after authenticating with Twitter, I was sent back to the home-page: not very convenient. :P
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
acanel3
Thanks for the article.
After reading a number of articles on responsive and fluid web design I’d like to offer my own quirky perspective.
I can see the benefits of setting up mathematical routines that serve to rearrange a set of visual elements within any number different rectangles but, for me, the benefits seem to be primarily in speeding up productivity.
However, it seems to me that a number of the articles in ALA’s “Responsive Design” category are casting fixed designs/layouts in an unflattering way.
The wish for that which might be called Eternity is seen as a foolish wish.
In contrast, the wish to ‘let go of control’ is associated with an outlook that would be held by a Buddhist sage.
I wouldn’t have such a difficult time accepting the premise of setting up an automated layout routine if this premise was being presented as a solution to certain economic and time constraints. Instead, these automated layout routines are endowed with an air of mysticism which, to me, seems unnecessary and misleading.
I would prefer to let myself fall under the influenced of a design (e.g. building, website,…) of a human being who was engaged in an inner process of observing how a set of spatial relationships influenced his/her being, and who was then able to recognize in him/herself, and communicate (via stone, glass, wood, pixels, etc.) something of a universal idea or feeling.
The alternative would be to let myself be influenced by a mechanism that calculates how far a wall should move away from me when I walk into a room (responsive architecture), or how my column widths distribute themselves (responsive web page).
If the current economy was able to support a scenario where a strong designer actually designed (manually) twelve different fixed layouts, each for different devices, I would get more pleasure in looking at how she or he tried to communicate the same feeling/idea in twelve different ways.
In this world where “content is king”, apparently aesthetics is the lowly serf. Visual relationships are demoted to the level of “style”.
26 Reader Comments
Back to the Articlegeo
Discuss this article. We reserve the right to delete flames, trolls, and wood nymphs.
Ron
I am all for content-first strategies. The problem with this approach though, is it seems all the tools and libraries available are optimised for layout-first grids. Right now it seems like each developer is on their own, having to read generic advice and apply it on a case-by-case basis.
I wonder if it is possible to distill a finite number of content types from the wide spectrum of content in the wild? It would seem like this is a necessary step towards being able to offer advice, tools and libraries that are both practical and specific.
PS. after authenticating with Twitter, I was sent back to the home-page: not very convenient. :P
Rob Wood
The examples currently appear to be broken. Thought provoking article and the water analogy is a good one.
Rose Weisburd
@Rob Wood Strange, the links are working for me. Perhaps it was a temporary hiccup.
Rob Wood
@Rose Weisburd They work fine now. I think it was a problem with http://responsive.is so not the article at all.
Apologies to the author!
acanel3
Thanks for the article.
After reading a number of articles on responsive and fluid web design I’d like to offer my own quirky perspective.
I can see the benefits of setting up mathematical routines that serve to rearrange a set of visual elements within any number different rectangles but, for me, the benefits seem to be primarily in speeding up productivity.
However, it seems to me that a number of the articles in ALA’s “Responsive Design” category are casting fixed designs/layouts in an unflattering way.
The wish for that which might be called Eternity is seen as a foolish wish.
In contrast, the wish to ‘let go of control’ is associated with an outlook that would be held by a Buddhist sage.
I wouldn’t have such a difficult time accepting the premise of setting up an automated layout routine if this premise was being presented as a solution to certain economic and time constraints. Instead, these automated layout routines are endowed with an air of mysticism which, to me, seems unnecessary and misleading.
I would prefer to let myself fall under the influenced of a design (e.g. building, website,…) of a human being who was engaged in an inner process of observing how a set of spatial relationships influenced his/her being, and who was then able to recognize in him/herself, and communicate (via stone, glass, wood, pixels, etc.) something of a universal idea or feeling.
The alternative would be to let myself be influenced by a mechanism that calculates how far a wall should move away from me when I walk into a room (responsive architecture), or how my column widths distribute themselves (responsive web page).
If the current economy was able to support a scenario where a strong designer actually designed (manually) twelve different fixed layouts, each for different devices, I would get more pleasure in looking at how she or he tried to communicate the same feeling/idea in twelve different ways.
In this world where “content is king”, apparently aesthetics is the lowly serf. Visual relationships are demoted to the level of “style”.
Sorry to be such a contrarian.