Aw C’mon, Simon Foxx. I is one of those people who build things for the idiots with the handhelds.
(But I do hate the ads - that’s not my world). The concept (called responsive design) does have benefits for when you don’t have the table space for a desktop or laptop. A good responsive site would allow the user to select the information they deem most important.
In fact, it would be very cool in some cases if a certain web site (who shall not be named for fear if the zot) could go to a more responsive design as well.
No, it wouldn’t. You have a funny definition of “responsive”. What you apparently call “responsive” I find to be completely “non-responsive” from my way of looking at things.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
I am glad you brought up FR, because it is a perfect illustration of what I am talking about. You may find FR antiquated in design, but it is the very simplicity and layout that makes it so easy and quick to navigate around.
I don’t want bells and whistles, and I could care less about ads (that’s what Ad-Aware Plus is for :>), but I want a website I can scan, get the info I want, and move on - not have to scroll endlessly, click endlessly and still wonder what I have missed.
Get it now?
Why don’t websites have a “desktop viewing” option for those of us who are not a part of the 20 something “don’t bother me with any depth I only have the attention span of a flea” generation?
Can you answer that? Is it really that difficult to do? I doubt it, I think the problem is that the @%!$! website designers are themselves largely from that generation, and that they, like all good navel-gazing 20-somethings automatically assume that if its technologically new, its good, and of course, everyone agrees right? W-R-O-N-G.