WebsiteBaker Support (2.8.x) > Templates, Menus & Design

Non responsive template

(1/3) > >>

HK:
I would like to argue to maintain at least one non responsive template for websites in WebsiteBaker.
Sometimes the overview that provides a non-responsive home page is an advantage, even on a small screen.
Many smartphone users have no problem to enlarge of the image with, for example, the menu as they are already used to do so viewing photos.
Responsive design does not always have to be preferred. Non responsive templates are easier te be styled.
I would like to argue to maintain, for example, AllCSS as a non-responsive template; to update it for new versions of WB, and to facilitate a download possibility. Also it would be nice if the possibility for extra block(s) were added.
What about a discussion on this topic?

CodeALot:
If you don't understand why non-responsive is a "no-no" for SO many reasons, you can't be serious about building websites.
Further, I'd like to know the basis for your claim that "many smartphone users" don't have a problem with ill-designed websites. I don't believe that for one second.
Your next claim (non-responsive is easier to be styled) is utter nonsense.

Maybe your wish comes from a lack of knowledge on responsive webdesign, media queries and CSS that comes with it. I suggest you spend time working on that, instead of launching bad designed (non-responsive), bad scoring (Google!) websites into the world.

johnbroeckaert:
If you are realy serious about non-responsive websites, due to all the reasons @Codealot mentioned, then there are some older non-responsive templates here: https://wbce.at/tpls/
(look at the right  :evil:  )

dbs:
I have already been asked to integrate a button for desktop view. So mobile users can switch.
If the customer wants this, it is not a question of understanding responsiveness.

HK:
@CodeALot: There is no need to be aggressive in your reaction.
You don't give any of your SO many reasons. Of course I know some but maybe I missed a few.
The basis for my claim is a test under the users of my website http://www.pierewaaienscheveningen.nl that needed an upgrade. I made 2 alternative websites to test: https://pierewaaienscheveningen.nl/wordpress/ and http://pierewaaienscheveningen.blogspot.com. Sorry for shopping around!
Reactions were in favor of the old, non responsive website and people indicated that is was no trouble enlarging the image on their small screen to be able to handle the small menu items. This was not what I expected as I was planning to build a responsive website to replace the old one. As is the favorite point of view in the website builders world, this was a surprise to me also.

--- Quote ---Maybe your wish comes from a lack of knowledge on responsive webdesign, media queries and CSS that comes with it. I suggest you spend time working on that, instead of launching bad designed (non-responsive), bad scoring (Google!) websites into the world.
--- End quote ---
May I say this is a bit arrogant? My ambition is not to be a top designer of websites, I am just a handyman that maintains some websites for people I am related to. As I well remember WebsiteBaker was originally set up as a tool to do precisely that.
My point is that non responsive is not the same as ill-designed as you stated. A point taken is that Google search classifies responsive websites higher than non responsive ones. It should not be in my view; let us see what a real discussion can bring us.
@John Broeckeart:
I followed the link you gave, but found no 'older non responsive templates' there. I was happy to still have the code for the AllCSS template, which can be adapted with a show-menu2() and functions well under WB2.10. I just wish there was a possibility to use extra blocks; maybe I will try to find out how to integrate this in the future.
@dbs:
Can I see your reaction as a confirmation that some users prefer to see a non responsive layout on their small screens? Thanks for backing me up in this discussion!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page