Is responsive design compulsary for the websites in this mobile era?

Yes, it is mandatory that website should be responsive, according to Google's new algorithm Mobilegeddon if the website is not responding or mobile friendly then maybe its the ranking of a website will be affected, or may be Google de-indexed the website.

 

Yeah, typically in those cases you'd want to look at Baidu or Yandex... wonder what their numbers look like.

 

A small correction: Google will NOT de-index non-mobile-friendly sites. It will simply favor the sites that have conformed with its new mobile requirement. Non-mobile-friendly sites will still be indexed. They'll just appear after mobile-sites.

 

And only ON MOBILE - ie, if you have a great page rank on desktop, this will not be affected (at least not at the present time) - only searches done on mobile platforms will get the changed ratings.

 

Now if they'd only start penalizing websites that suck on desktop -- you know, the ones built with fixed width layouts, fixed height / perfect width design elements, illegible colour contrasts, fixed metric fonts, little if anything you could call content "above the fold" even at 1440 height...

OH wait, aren't those for the most part the same types of sites that suck on mobile?

I'm getting a bit tired of people saying "mobile this" and "mobile that" and "mobile some other damned thing" when what we REALLY should be talking about is what HTML was created to do in the first place: device neutrality. Failing to pay heed to it, accessibility norms and the good practices introduced by STRICT and separation of presentation from content is WHY so many people are basically faced with throwing their site away and starting over from scratch if they actually care about doing "mobile" properly... since to be frank the "sleazing out HTML 3.2 and the proprietary stuff that followed to slap 4 tranny or 5 lip-service around it" nonsense so many people continue to vomit up is a hefty chunk of why usability is at an all-time low DESPITE our being given all the tools to make it better!

That people STILL come up with lame excuses not to pull their heads out of 1997's arse to do it still baffles me.

 

Yes repsonsive design is compulsory in this era. This has became very easy with so many tools available today. Out of them most important and i use is bootstrap


Best Funny Jokes Videos and Pictures

 

I'm sure DS will be so happy to see Bootstrap being recommended as a tool for responsive design.

For myself I will just say that what bootstrap does to best practices, is about what maggots do to good beef.

Cd&

 

I guess the simple ans to this question is that new generation is mobile generation and even previous generation is converting to mobile. If your business is new then it's website has to be responsive to reach to your target market. Examples of Amazon and IBM are irrelevant to me if my business isn't that big. And even if these business giant don't have responsive sites they will be soon be needing to have ones. So if you are making website do make it responsive right now. Once you are done with your website, to make it responsive later on will hurt your programming, time and finance as well.
All the best!

 

Not quite true. If the original is well structured and the markup is valid and semantic (oh, and your css makes sense---not a given these days), adding media queries is trivial. Write crap, and you've got a lot of shoveling to do before you can even start the refactoring.

 

• Responsive web design let allow the user to access the website from the handset in much easier way,he can do number of things easily like filling he form,paying out bills, bookings etc, when the design of the web is responsive.

 

This but it's so easy to make a responsive website these days with Bootstrap 3 and Zurb there's no reason to not have a responsive website .

 

Interesting stats:







More here: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-mobile-friendly-search-ranking-factors-19926.html

 

Yes, responsive design is now valid. We heard a about latest algorithm which has been released this April 21 which is totally based on mobile friendly.

 

Yes, China doesn't need Google. They're their own world. And they are arguably the only country in Asia that doesn't use Google. The first world countries - Hong Kong, Singapore(where i'm from) and to a certain extent, Malaysia, are on Google.

 

Having a responsive design should not be an option anymore, especially for online businesses.
Responsive design is more on users preference that will benefit both the user and the business.
These are the changes we need to adapt, besides it will not harm our sites but it will improve.

 

I agree, but NOT ALL WEB SITES ARE BUSINESS SITES; and if the objectives of the site do not mesh well with mobile then you have to be an idiot to waste resources doing something that has zero pay back. My users are developers working on solving a problem. They don't do that on an iphone. when you are coding you need more than a 320px wide screen and only an error prone virtual keyboard. I am glad Google has quit sending me mobile users because they are just folks who accidentally used a search term that bring up my content.

I converted my clients who need mobile, but those who think all sites must support mobile to be successful are from another planet. I also don't support old browser, because my user community does not use old technology; perhaps Google shold not sent me IE6, 7, or 8 users; and certainly not netscape 4 users. Give your head a shake... success is measured by how well you perform in the niche you target, not by your rank on Alexa or whether or not Google likes you. Google has done me a favor by eliminating the mobile users who are not going to find what they are looking for on my site. Three days in to change by Google my daily averages are exactly where thet were before the change. With a week to go in the month my page views are already 20% higher than the same month last year.

Anyone who thinks I need to compete on mobile, is going to need to show me the evidence that in my niche I will stop growing if I fail to add mobile. Show me documentation that professional developers are using phone to do their coding.

 

To me that depends on how badly you've painted yourself into a corner with outdated nonsense and bad practices that either never had any business on a website in the first place, or have had no place on any website written over the past 18 years.

IF you have an entire site built with broken garbage methodologies like "more emphasis" being put on things that shouldn't even be emphasized, tables for layout, scripttardery doing CSS' job, endless pointless presenational use of classes, ID's for nothing, abuse of button tags outside of forms for christmas only knows what, zero logical document structure or heading orders, separate elements like menu items reading as a run-on sentence (or mashed together as one word) from a lack of proper block level containers, redundant/pointless use of TITLE, improper use of the already pointlessly redundant HTML 5 "structural" tags, clearing DIV like it's still 2001, static style in the markup.... Well, then it's faster to toss the entire mess and start over from scratch and that's the point at which you have to weigh that cost of conversion.

BUT as I keep saying, if a site has been built paying ANY attention to all the good advice, rules and practices advocated since 4 STRICT was introduced some 17 or so years ago, bothered learning to use HTML and CSS properly, and developed with separation of presentation from content and semantic markup, there is NO excuse as it's maybe a 20 minute job for an entire site using MAYBE a whole whopping 4k of CSS to pull it off.

Likewise there is NO excuse for any NEW website to not at least make the attempt since if you have ANY business writing HTML you should already have all those stepping stones in place to take you there... and to be frank if your old site wasn't developed with any of the important accessibility minded design concepts and was just sleazed out any old way,

Of course, the majority of people still just sleaze out 3.2 and the proprietary tags and attributes that followed and then slap either 4 tranny or 5 lip-service on it, then wonder why responsive is so "hard" to do for them. HTML 5 sure as shine-ola hasn't been helping that with it's ridiculous loosening of structural rules, redundant semantics nobody is bothering to use properly anyways, and host of other idiotic nonsense dragging development practices back to the worst of browser-wars era garbage...

It's hard to believe the bullshit known as HTML 5 caught on at all, but of course most of the 'cool' stuff people call HTML 5 isn't; the really cool and useful stuff being CSS3 and the new scripting features. They have to slap those under 5's banner so that HTML 5 has something more to offer than promoting vendor-lock in on media formats (laughably done in the name of fighting vendor lock-in... that's some GOOD bullshit right there!) and pointless redundancies making a relatively simple specification needlessly and pointlessly complex.

...and no offense @COBOLdinosaur, your website is a poster child for what I mean by the people who never moved past HTML 3.2 being the target audience for HTML 5, and that's not a good thing. It does NOT lend much credibility to your offering code. Admittedly some of those articles would make me kick the writer in the junk if we met in real life, like the article espousing the virtues of heredoc and nowdoc because they are too stupid to use single quotes, whitespace and delimits properly as evidenced by the card-stacked examples... much less the "HTML, what's that?!?" form examples...

As a developer, the type of person you'd think would be your target audience, your site would be instabounce as I often make the assumption that if the front end is an inaccessible useless train wreck, what's offered by the site cannot be much better. As I often tell people I'd throw that entire mess in the trash and start over as there's little I'd be trying to salvage from it... in the traditional "if you don't know what's wrong with this:

<div id="borrowMsg" class="md-hide md-content md-modal">
    <div id="md-detail">

Code (markup):

or this:

<div id="PLogo"><a href="cdHome.html"><img src="../images/cd100.jpg" alt="COBOLdinosaur logo" title="COBOLdinosaur Ruler of this domain" /></a></div>
<section id="PSiteTitle"><p class="padspan">COBOLdinosaur
<!-- TEMP<br/><span style="color:white;background-color:black;border:6px double white;font-size:60%;padding:10px;font-family:'Times New Roman';">Message goes here</span> End TEMP --> </p></section>
<section id="PFeature"><nav id="PFmenu">
<a  id="item0" href="cdHome.html" title="Cd& Home Page "  >HOME
<img id="Titem0" class="mThumb" src="../images/thumbs/home.png" alt="home"  /></a>

Code (markup):

or this:

<div id="PMainblock">
<article id="PContent">
    <article id="textblock">
        <h3>A Few Bits and Pieces to Help with Web Development</h3>
        <p>Here you will find scripts and snippets contributed by members of <strong>COBOLdinosaur.com</strong>.   Just click on a category from the menu on the left 
        and that will display a summary list of what is available.  The <b>scripts are free</b>.  An acknowledgment to <span class="heavyB">COBOLdinosaur.com</span> or the author of the
       <b> script</b> would be nice, but is not required.  Some of the scripts may include a copyright notice from the author.  Please do not remove such notices as it violates the
        rights of the author, who has provided the content free.</p>

Code (markup):

Much less this:

<footer id="PCright">
The views and opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and not necessarily those of COBOLdinosaur.com<br />
&copy; Copyright 2006-15 COBOLdinosaur.com
<a href="rules.html" title="rules for Web developers">Terms of Service</a>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="privacy.html" title="privacy">Privacy Policy</a> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 
</footer>

</div>
<div style="position:relative;clear:both;"><aside class="viewWidget">This page has been viewed 17,057 times</aside></div>

Code (markup):

You probably shouldn't be telling people how to make websites. Doesn't do a lot for your credibility.

Hell, this alone:

© Copyright

Code (markup):

Cracks me up every time I see someone do it.

Admittedly my boring noctua browns and goofy use of inset shadows aren't doing much for my own sites, but at least they're technically sound.

Sorry to say, given your site and what you've been saying your posts about it being "optional" comes across like just more lame excuses to justify not using HTML or CSS properly than it is real justification for why you can't or won't go responsive. Even without responsive layout in the mix what you have was built with outdated or just plain incorrect thinking and a complete failure to grasp the HTML and CSS specifications; again the total joke of it being that you have presentational HTML 3.2 thinking and pointless code bloat in a 5 document just proving what **** 5 is... as evidenced by the 9k HTML file delivering 1.84k of plaintext and nothing I'd even consider treating as a content image; basically anywhere from two to three times the code needed. Mix in the lack of media targets and gibberish document structure and you've literally ignored what HTML is even for.

To be honest given all that I've been scratching my head for months on how we end up on the same side of so many of these types of threads.

 

You don't move into a flat going I won't paint this because it's not a house

 

@Licensecart, you just said with eloquence in one sentence what I spent 8k spewing.

Well played.

 

Haha I'm good at comparing stuff mate I'm not sure if it's because I'm a cheeky brit.