[jgroome]

"Responsive" is pretty factual - something either is or it isn't responsive.

"Beautiful" and "awesome", however, I could do without seeing everywhere for a few months. Especially "awesome".

[Silhouette]

"Responsive" is pretty factual - something either is or it isn't responsive.

But unfortunately the original meaning of "responsive" as Marcotte coined the term has been diluted by people who apply the term to any site that uses media queries to change its layout on a mobile device. There is more to responsive web design than media queries, and there are plenty of ways to use media queries to adapt a site to different devices that aren't responsive web design.

[woah]

Well, at that point, it's really just a matter of opinion. If a layout uses media queries to 'respond' to different screen sizes, it is by definition 'responsive'. Anything past that starts to be an aesthetic/no true scotsman type of argument.

[Code_Poet]

Language evolves... so long as we can all agree on what we WANT "responsive" to mean, it's all good in the hood.

[rplnt]

But it's not always a necessity to be responsive.

[wmeredith]

Nor does it imply quality in and of itself.

>>"Responsive" is pretty factual - something either is or it isn't responsive.

"Car" is pretty factual. There's all kinds of cars...