Well, This Is Depressing (aka Google Analytics for SE Traffic to LOR)

[ecchi]

Originally Posted by BNS

just using % instead of px doesn't make a site instantly responsive.

No, but it is as start, a good start. And using % for absolutely everything (not just tables) WILL make it responsive, provided you know what you are doing (but it is easy to fuck up if you don't). Using CSS is one way but (news flash) it ain't the best. CSS is not consistent across all browsers, CSS does not work on all 'phones and tablets, and CSS is large and bloated, doubles the page size and makes "on the fly" changes difficult. In short CSS is the first resort of the lazy. Nothing wrong with that - I am proudly lazy. But if you are going to use CSS you have to be aware of it's limitations. Believing it to be a superior "use it always" solution is the first stage getting shit Google ranking because their spiders see your site as "non-compatible".

And while I'm being opinionated and pissing everyone off:

Originally Posted by Greenguy

I'm no ding-a-ling!

Hmm.... I'd say refusing to allow for XP IE8 surfers makes you a ding-a-ling!

[BNS]

Originally Posted by ecchi

No, but it is as start, a good start. And using % for absolutely everything (not just tables) WILL make it responsive, provided you know what you are doing (but it is easy to fuck up if you don't). Using CSS is one way but (news flash) it ain't the best. CSS is not consistent across all browsers, CSS does not work on all 'phones and tablets, and CSS is large and bloated, doubles the page size and makes "on the fly" changes difficult. In short CSS is the first resort of the lazy. Nothing wrong with that - I am proudly lazy. But if you are going to use CSS you have to be aware of it's limitations. Believing it to be a superior "use it always" solution is the first stage getting shit Google ranking because their spiders see your site as "non-compatible".

using css was invented to solve all those problems - mainly separating layout of webpage from content, nothing to do with being lazy or not, you obviously got it the other way around.

as well as you obviously have no idea what makes a page responsive.

links which will make it more clear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsive_web_design

[ecchi]

Originally Posted by BNS

using css was invented to solve all those problems

If that were the case (its not, but if it were) then CSS failed miserably. In fact it would be an epic fail of historic proportions.

Originally Posted by BNS

mainly separating layout of webpage from content, nothing to do with being lazy or not

Yes this is why CSS was invented, to separate layout from webpage, simply that - not to solve the problems of compatibility or responsiveness. In other words, to make things easier for "lazy" webmasters.

Originally Posted by BNS

you obviously have no idea what makes a page responsive

Childish insults tend to loose arguments, not win them.

If you want links, here are a few on CSS compatibility:

Browser Compatibility

Tablet Compatibility

'Phone Compatibility

[ecchi]

Originally Posted by BNS

just because shitty looking site made you money in 90s, it doesn't mean it will do again.....

That is my point about CSS. There is such browser and device incompatibility that it is practically impossible to make a site that is not "shitty looking" on some machines if you use CSS. Take LOR for example. Despite G's modesty it is a good looking site. However if you look at the thread where he talks about adding a slide in menu to the site, you will see it now only looks good on some devices and some operating systems. On others (eg XP/IE8) it is (sorry G) a "shitty looking site".

On XP/IE8 you get confronted by three non working buttons and an ugly menu dump. Worse, because the menu dump is the same on all pages, if you click a link "above the fold" the page appears not to change (it does change, but you have to scroll several screens worth down to see the change, most people won't realise this and will assume the page is fucked).

This means G is loosing, by his figures, $1 out of every $40 he could be making (Google disagree, their figures put it at about 20%, which is $8 out of every $40).

Worse, people will be talking about it. One XP user tweeting "Don't bother with LOR - it no longer works" will stop dozens of their followers even trying to visit the site, loosing him surfers who could ironically see the site perfectly on their Windows 8 machines, but who now don't bother because their XP using friend told them the site was as good as dead. Add on to that a few good re-tweets by people with plenty of followers, and G could be loosing thousands, possibly tens of thousands of surfers.

On top of that, I have been told (although PC says this is "old news") that Google lower the ranking of sites that are not IE8 compatible. Which, from this thread alone, you can tell will not make G a happy boy.

All this hassle because G used CSS instead of pure HTML. Is it worth it?