Apple.com responsive?
- Started
- Last post
- 51 Responses
- err0
goto this site resize the window to a small size.
http://www.barackobama.com/
- hotroddy0
Responsive design is ONE website made to scale to different screens (most notably phones) using css.
The fact that you have to scale something so it fits on a smaller screen limits your options thereby making it look GENERIC. Collapsable menus, fluid grids, top to bottom scrolling... etc are all the RAGE thus resulting in a trendy and ever so generic style.
It's actually a lazy/easier way of building a website rather than building two separate sites ( *still only one backend) - One for mobile/touch events and one for desktop/mouse events.
- Nonsense. What about extra wide screens...? Tablets...... ?set
- tablets, extra wide screens have (relatively) same aspect ratio. Phones, however portrait orientation forces responsivenesshotroddy
- *phones forces you to be responsive due to it's orientation.. from my experienceshotroddy
- ie. you have to stack elements below one anotherhotroddy
- You have no ideaset
- this whole post is nonsense... responsive isn't about scaling, it's a rearrangement more than anythingmonospaced
- The Apple site HAS a generic responsive look to it... except it's not responsive.ETM
- It looks like it should stack and scale easily based on the arrangement of most sections.ETM
- slappy0
Screw apple, why isnt QBN responsive?
- omg0
ask Siri
- SigDesign0
I think we can attribute this methodology to their current 'separate worlds' approach.
iOS and OSX are separate worlds to them, and therefore they probably feel that making a sales site 'for their device' work on the 'device itself' as a simple waste of resources.
What brings you to Apple.com? Chances are, you're not checking it out on your mobile phone.
It may be that at some point in the future, the experience of making large computer and software purchases on a mobile device will be better and more frequent. But, at this point, Apple clearly treats their .com as a desktop portal, and their app store as a separate entity.
Look at iTunes... that whole experience of purchasing songs and movies is also a separate experience. I think it does make sense in the long run to start merging these experiences into one.
- With all the different sized monitors, shouldn't everything be a little responsive today?omahadesigns
- omahadesigns0
Shit, apple.com isn't responsive at all, right?
- omahadesigns0
windows.com got it right, even with that standard drop down menu.
- << this is what I mean about generichotroddy
- Hell yeah windows.com is generic, but at least you can use it on iPhone.omahadesigns
- People don't go to the windows site though. Apples site is busy as fuck.monospaced
- Lol mono, pretty fair pointHombre_Lobo
- boobs0
Well, one thing you are missing out on is most all of the support information, which doesn't seem to be on the store app. And the store app has way, way less information in it than apple.com does. The store app and apple.com are not really comparable, I don't think. But in a way, that's all kind of beside the point.
My point is, they've made billions on the iPhone. They put mobile web browsing on the map. Shouldn't the inventor of the iPhone have a website that is usable, and legible, on an iPhone?
I mean, it doesn't have to be responsive, per se. But, you know, the letters shouldn't just disappear into miniscule dots, and you shouldn't hit 4 buttons on the nav bar when you use it on a phone.
And, you know, the idea that Apple is lazy, and just can't be bothered seems odd to me. They put enormous amounts of effort into the tiny details of their products, and product presentation, and user experience, and design, and making things look good.
So, to me, it's obvious that they have chosen to do that. It's a deliberate decision. But why? What is the rationale? To impress Jodie Foster? To make it impossible for people to read the site while riding the bus?
I don't get it.
It seems a bit like going into the General Electric plant and finding everything lit by candle...
- ukit20
I think this comment had it right:
http://www.qbn.com/topics/685178…
One thing you will notice is there is a lot of inertia around large sites like this. I remember when Yahoo announced a big "redesign" of their site but only bothered to change the homepage. I'm sure if Apple could start from scratch they would create a responsive site, but it's probably a bigger effort than people think when you are talking about hundreds of pages of custom layouts that would need to be updated.
- really? I'll do it for one million dollarsGeorgesIV
- I'll do it for $999,990iCanHazQBN
- ESKEMA0
Apple.com is not a simple site, its a fucking beast. I agree that they should have a more optimized version of it but it's a tremendous task to make it full mobile. They're probably working on it, who knows..
My point is, it's not just putting some media queries, the site is huge with lots of different sections. Not an easy task without sacrificing a lot.
- Hombre_Lobo0
As fate rightly pointed out there is some serious misunderstandings of responsive web design and development in this thread.
But ultimately you would think that the company that pushes mobile devices and who has arguably had more impact on that market than any other company, would have a website that is mobile friendly.
Not to mention how apple are all meant to be about user friendly and usability. A full desktop site on a mobile phone is in no way the most user friendly experience.
There is a reason there is a huge mobile first responsive movement in web dev and design, because its incredibly effective.
Apple probably couldn't give a crap, they are too busy raking it in from the app store and have other priorities. But making a new responsive site would certainly be beneficial.
GENERIC LOOKING:
Sure a lot of responsive sites look the same, but that's kind of a pointless argument. You see loads of sites that are just another super generic responsive twitter bootstrap or foundation clone.But to dismiss responsive mobile first web design because a lot of people have been unimaginitive in the design and implementation of websites, is just plain stupid.
It's like seeing loads of ugly jpegs and thinking "fuck jpegs". Or seeing JavaScript used for the same thing on every site and thinking "fuck JavaScript".
- they make it sounds like it's fuckn rocket science
https://beta.virgina…GeorgesIV - Ha absolutely! just saw that site on twitter, looks decent eh! Still needs work though, but it's only beta!Hombre_Lobo
- they make it sounds like it's fuckn rocket science
- animatedgif0
Because the point was the iPhone was powerful enough for the real web
- You mean exactly like the person before your said?set
- You..set
- Couldn't be arsed reading the whole threadanimatedgif
- guys im right here..ephix
- deathboy0
Seems like responsive design has a niche client. But definitely not the need all be for everything. The designing for the lowest common denominator without any real reason except cause or a few people surf on phones is pointless. That kind of thinking is why slates still have to be in safe areas for the old tube tv's. And most adweek numbers of mobile growth never do specify their definitions of "mobile". Im wondering how much hardware they call mobile that has at least 1024 wide browser. Ultrabooks, tablets, and the like that can display pages fine. I really think its about the money. Easy to adjust templates and upsell for more money and less creativity and targeting. People always seem to forget to ask is responsive really necessary for this client anymore. Or better to just make a quickie mobile version straight forward.
- Mobile traffic overtook desktop traffic last year. Designing for mobile and responsive is now very important.Hombre_Lobo
- I was a bit vague, I'll try and get the stats and specific markets and post them...Hombre_Lobo
- I do agree the term mobile can be vague though. I imagine it means non-desktop os in a lot of cases.Hombre_Lobo
- Yea i read it took it over but everyone i ask says emial/facebook social shit. No real web surfing on phones. Tablets they do. I wish they be mroe thorough with there numbersdeathboy
- i know people surf more with. Just not much on phones whenever i ask. Could be a small circle. But i wish they actually defined mobile as less than 400 px or soemthingdeathboy
- would define mobile as browsers smaller than 400 pixels or a pixel per inch measurement of some sort. Laptops go mobile...deathboy
- But still don't forget to ask is responsive really necessary for this client? Is this a site a mobile user will spend time on?deathboy
- on?deathboy
- I agree it's not always necessary, for small budgets certainly. But the world is getting more device diverse faster than ever,Hombre_Lobo
- Hombre_Lobo0
Just spotted ephix comment here -
http://www.qbn.com/topics/685178…
(having it non responsive was part of showing how the iPhone can display the full web) That's a pretty solid argument, v good point dude.At launch that seems like a very wise choice and helpful to their marketing. By now though when smart phones are well understood by most I would have thought they would be responsive for improved usability.
This thread has some good discussion in it though. v interesting how some people still prefer the desktop site for usability.
However Preferring a desktop site because it has more options is just poor workmanship by the designer / dev, a lot of top ux dudes argue you should never omit features / options / content based on different screens sizes.
- jtb260
This is starting to sound a lot like the debate on whether or not to support IE6. Folks were screaming that 5-10% of browsers were still in and that was 5-10% they couldn't ignore.
Now mobile browsers account for 30-50% of mobile traffic (from what I've seen on clients sites). Don't see how you can ignore that.
m. sites usually mean that you have to manage two code bases for the front end, and it's just not feasible. On top of that, designing desktop first leaves you with a lot of problems when you try to scale down for mobile. That's why mobile first.
Just go read everything Luke W. has written on the topic.
- 30-50% of overall traffic.jtb26
- Luke worbleski bomb just got dropped... Shit got real. That dude is the kingHombre_Lobo
- I remember first making responsive sites and thinking screw mobile first... I quickly regretted it. It's aceHombre_Lobo
- cannonball19780
Because R/GA is a shit shop.
- GeorgesIV0
ok, I can accept the non responsiveness but png text.. with the type all blurry,
at this point I'm asking myself, do they even have web developers at apple?http://www.apple.com/environment…
- think differentfadein11
- MUST CONTROL LINE BREAKS.MrT
- Stop fcn shoutingMrT
- Type looks fine to me. Seriously. Might be your monitor.iCanHazQBN
- freedom0
How much more would the computers cost if they made the perfect website? Does anyone here use Safari either? I don't.
They are not in the web design business and I'm sure if you want to buy an apple, it works great on any computer or tablet.
Microsoft has a responsive site, but I don't care.
- mirrorball0
No need, they've an app for the app store
- But you can't buy apple products in the app store :/Hombre_Lobo
- But you can in the apple store app.jtb26
- And in store you can use to scan shit, pay and walk out without talking to a single blue shirted fuck.jtb26