We currently approach an interesting era in technology and
human interfacing; vastly different mediums exist, of different controls and
sizes, all capable of reaching the grand space of digital information, the
internet. What once started as
connecting people through phone lines with text has evolved to pictures,
sounds, and layouts. These layouts are visible as printed media from a computer
or from screens as small as a mobile phone device and as a big as one can make
a screen interface (which at this point is virtually limitless with the ability
to use multiple screens to act as one). Because of the variety of methods and
the way that one interacts with them, whether with a touch screen, a keyboard, or
a mouse, different ways of displaying that information becomes necessary, in
order to maintain the usefulness and the attractiveness of websites and pages.
Welcome, the responsive web design (which you can learn about a bit here), a
way of working out webpage to use different styles and layouts depending on the
type of situation is needed.
Response web design allows a great deal of control over how
a website can be seen visually. Not only can you classify how things can be
laid out in a way that works towards optimal design, but also you create an
adaptive form that can prioritize the proper elements in any situation. What
this opens up is the ability to display what is most important regardless of
screen size; a small screen can avoid isolated blocks of a page, or over-sized
navigational interfaces, while large screens will not have to deal with wasted
spaces. What is important is the ability to define the restrictions for which
these layouts take effect. For a webpage, defining media for CSS designer's can
chose what layout and styles are visible for what specific instances. Not
limited to the difference between screens and print, designers can also expand
into setting page widths, allowing set limitations based on the resolutions of
the media.
Defining different designs is only part of the goal with
responsive design, it is not only the option to define separate layouts but the
ability to maintain accessibility to the important points in a website that
makes the responsive layouts so effective. Once defined, every style-able part
of a website can be redefined, this allows for changes in size and position
including excluding of certain elements included in larger designs to add aesthetics and mood which is of lesser priority in a smaller visible field. The removal of these extra graphical elements
for smaller interfaces can allow for cleaner visibility of information, while
not requiring a separate interface. For the mobile device user, the removal of
graphics can be a benefit in terms of saving bandwidth, as mobile users often
access pages using internet which charges based on bandwidth used. In addition,
removing aesthetic and/or optional graphics is useful for developing print
views, as those extra options can be hindrances for printing in terms of readability
and ink conservation.
The way websites are interacted with can also be emphasized
using changed layouts. When properly defined for devices, which emphasize small
streamlined mobile device viewing, users, tend to prefer linear layouts which
favor simple flicks or scrolls on the vertical access for viewing. By
rearranging the layout in favor of these interfaces, the usefulness and
reliability of a website is expanded towards another medium and possibly a
different audience.
Responsive web design is not without its flaws, we may
support responsive web design as a future technological method because it
appeals to several different types of people and media, yet it present
different challenges along the way. Even though we are adapting a single site
or set of pages with unifying designs and layouts using CSS, we are still
requiring several different arrangements be created. It is not the same as
creating whole new pages all together, but by having several different types to
cater to, once is forced to create several layouts which are only used a
fraction of the total views of a website. Essentially, web designers can be
said to be making 2-3 layouts for a single type of page based solely on the way
one looks it (print vs. small screen vs. large screen for example).
Consistency is often a double-edged sword when it comes to
trying to appeal to all users and to cater to their own personal style. For a
user, revisiting a specific website in order to find familiar information based
on past visits can be made more difficult if the specific layout were to change.
Once a user visits a page in one medium, it sets up a mental image of the page
and how to reach certain points of information in their memory, visiting it
later through a different medium can be made more disorienting as it clashes
with the memory created in that first visit. This can be expanded into issues
regarding conveying the website to other users, if one user were to assist
another in accessing information, the difference in medium used and layout
could make the task more difficult.
The extended variation in layout can also create overhead
when designs need to be modified. Whether it is because a client wishes to
change the design for the sake of a new image, or because of issues with the
layout that is made evident by user response, any modification in layout or
design is made more problematic once different layouts for different situations
are involved. Modifying elements in one design which occur in another, could
create issues when modified, especially for common areas which are not usually
modified through layouts (for example main contents of an article). More consideration
is needed in modification in order to avoid the conceptual "fix one thing,
break another" situation.
Personally, the idea of response web design feels both
powerful and dangerous. Being able to set designs for multiple situations can
be a wonderful potential to optimizing information and applying impressive
design aesthetics regardless of the media. At the same time it requires almost
extensive work in an attempt to maintain the view for any situation, regardless
of the medium. This problem, especially in terms of resolution, is not a new
one. Monitors have varied in resolution for several years, between SD and HD,
and the various potential aspect ratios. The problem that occurs now is that
the differences exist several times over. I can see this being a great step
towards appealing to multiple types of interfaces, and multiple people, at the
same time the greater amount of work required can be a greater task for
beginners in the field. Whether this can be used well, is greatly dependent on
the time one is willing to dedicate to it, and the development of the different
ways that one can see these sites.
A good question might be, how many websites have you noticed
that have responsive designs? And have you ever made use of it?
No comments:
Post a Comment