This research project examines whether responsive web design is necessary for all websites. Through secondary research and interviews with industry professionals, the researcher tested various responsive design techniques and their usability across different devices. Key findings include that responsive design is preferred over mobile-specific design, content hierarchy is important, and further testing is needed to determine the best user experience across thousands of devices. The conclusion is that responsive design may not always be viable due to content or budget constraints, and is not required for every website.

1. Research Project
- Viva Voce Presentation
- Rajdeep Maiton
- N0296789

2. Research Question:
“Is it necessary for all websites to have a
responsive layout?"

3. Intensions:
“mobile usage is exploding”…“In 2012 more than half of the local searches were
performed on a mobile device”
(Summerfield, 2013)
Do web users know what RWD is and if so, is it expected as advances in technology
increases?

4. Methodologies:
 Conducting Secondary research to develop further understanding through the use of
material such as; Blogs, Journals and Interviews with Web industry professionals.
 Learning new techniques to improve the stages of RWD – to provide a better insight
into the design of an RWD website.
 Creating Primary research to test these new techniques - which was completed
through different artefacts that will be focussed on later in the presentation.

5. Findings:
RWD is the preferred method over the likes of MWD
Content is key – Hierarchy
Break Points are not always beneficial, however using the ‘Pragmatic, bottom to top’
(Saunders et al. 2008) approach emphasises working from the foundation will allow
an easier approach
Further research and testing is needed to test what delivers the best UI and UX
“9500 different devices” (Aves, 2013)

6. Artefact 1: What is RWD?
Artefact 1 had an initial purpose of collecting quantitative and qualitative data
through the use of a questionnaire. This was an important approach in order to
generate a general understanding of users interpretations of RWD. And to further
collect opinions regarding other RWD methods.

7. Artefact 1 & Findings:

8. Artefact 2: Design vs. Content
The purpose of the aftefact was to test whether users would be deterred by the idea of design
changing even when this reflects a priority of key information to the top of their device screen.
Desktop Version Responsive Same Layout Responsive Different Layout

9. Artefact 2 & Findings:
Would you compromise design
over content?
77%
23%
If using the website for the purpose of gaining
quick information, which website would you
choose to be most efficient on mobile?
TheUsers Websites

10. Progressing from artefact 2, artefact 3 was a test that looked to compare and
contrast RWD over Mobile web design, and understand its perception by users.
Would you notice whether the website examples
follow a different layout from each other or the
same when adjusting to different device sizes?
90%
10%
Artefact 3: Responsive Vs. Mobile
Do you prefer responsive design or
mobile design?
10%
90%

11. Artefact 4: What content is important and who
decides that?
The purpose of artefact 4 was to gain worthwhile and reliable information regarding
RWD in industry. This was achieved through interviewing Dan Donald, an established
web developer who gave a talk related directly to the topic of research. This added
further benefit as it gave the opinion of someone well indulged with RWD and who is
fully aware of its progression throughout the advances in technology.

12. Artefact 5: Future proofing the web with a mobile first
approach
Here a theory was tested to see how smaller screen sizes would effect RWD and the content.
JavaScript Enabled Pre Browser Web

13. Further Research:
“missing equation” (Hartley, Anon)
Investigating how the web industry is dealing with new technologies such as: Google
Glass and Samsung Gear Watch
What effects will RWD have in relation to mobile data and costs for consumers
Will taking a backwards step to ‘pre browse web’ websites be a solution for smaller
view ports
‘Future-Proofing”
 Will there be a limit to RWD

14. Conclusion
Testing showed there were no noticeable differences between RWD and MWD
Content is key – Hierarchy
RWD may not always be a viable option:
The content may not be accessible or viewable of smaller sized devices, e.g. hover
over animation
The client’s budget may not cover RWD coding.
RWD is not needed for every website

15. References
Aves, N, 2013. Mobilising the masses: getting responsive web design for mobile right [online]. Memeburn.
Available at: http://memeburn.com/2013/01/mobilising-the-masses-getting-responsive-web-design-for-mobile-
right/ [Accessed 10th
October 2013].
Donald, D, 2014. Flux and Flexibility. Conference hosted by Second Wednesday on 12th
February 2014 at Antenna
Nottingham [unpublished]
Hartley, J, Anon. Responsive Design Panel [online]. Available at: http://johnbhartley.com/speaking/toronto/#41
[Accessed 12th
October 2013].
Summerfield, L, 2013. 6 Undeniable Reasons Why The Future of Web Design is Resoinsive. HubSpot Inbound Hub
[online blog]. 25th
November. Available at: http://blog.hubspot.com/insiders/why-responsive-web-design [Accessed
29th
March 2014].