Nuggetty Goodness

It's really, really beautiful. Not obvious HOW beautiful till you start zooming in and out but... O.O

Needs Chrome.

Responsive design is more work. And more expensive. Maybe you don't need it as much as you think you do.

I've run into the idea that since responsive design is a more efficient mobile solution than creating unique mobile sites or alternate page templates, it is therefore going to be cheaper and simpler than what everyone is expecting. Not true. The fact of the matter is that doing responsive design requires work that just wouldn't be done at all if mobile wasn't a consideration. Now, I'm not advocating that we ignore mobile. But in some cases, I'd argue that mobile is probably higher on the priority list than a serious cost/benefit analysis would merit.

Our audience is primarily comprised of people working in the advertising, marketing and design industry. They're people who influence or make decisions about design and development projects. With our audience in mind, if you were to ask me if mobile should be a higher priority I'd say absolutely. I'd think of all of our hip and stylish visitors and how many of them probably already have an iPhone 5. But you know what? In the last month, just under 10% of our website's visitors accessed it with a mobile device. That includes phones and tablets. If I extend my look to the last six months, the mobile population is exactly the same. The last year? It drops to 8%. So, mobile traffic is growing, but not as rapidly as I would have assumed based upon what I think I know about our audience. With those numbers, should mobile be prioritized as much as it has been (we're about to launch a site redesign that makes heavy use of responsive design techniques — more on that later)? With over 90% of our visitors still coming in through a "desktop" computer? Probably not. But for us, there's an additional consideration of needing to demonstrate our capabilities in this area, which pushes the benefits over the cost. For many other businesses, though, that additional benefit doesn't exist.

Very few of our clients have a "money is no object" attitude when it comes to budgeting for a web project. In fact, for many of them, our costs are a bit of a stretch. But they believe in the value of what we offer and trust us to lead them to the best outcomes. It would be wrong for me to push responsive design on all of them, indiscriminate of what they know about their audience, their actual visitor data, and their actual budget. If their money could be better spent in some other way, then it should be.

Superbly practical and down-to-earth article about responsive design.

Too many creative leads (and writers) jump onto the idea of responsive design like it's the next wonderfully shiny new toy that will display their leetness, without regard for whether or not it's actually suited to what they're producing. It's refreshing to see something so logical and well-thought out about the subject.

Zooniverse has quite a few neat projects using crowdsourcing of interested human brains to help scientists classify data.

They started off with Galaxy Zoo, which basically gets people to help classify what stars, solar systems, etc, and expanded out to quite a few more.

With Bat Detective, you listen to batty squeaks of doom, then help classify them.

All Zooniverse's stuff is really well done, and fun to use, while Contributing To Science at the same time. Give the squee-bats (or the other stuff) a poke, and you'll see!

It’s actually remarkable to see that sites like Google, Live, Twitter, LinkedIn, AOL, Adobe and Myspace (to name just a few) send out a 1150 byte icon.
Given that Google has tried everything to skim down its main page (including removing </body> and </html> tags, it’s odd they didn’t save the 239 bytes by creating a PNG file and providing that PNG to all non-IE clients (multiply it by 100 million or so hits/day and you get a nice 23TBytes…).

Whoa, I never even considered this. O.o