Tag Archives: Web Design

Practical responsive web design, part one

I’ve been wanting to write this post for a while, but I’ve been too busy writing code instead. Plus, the techniques are evolving and changing so fast, that by the time I finish a project, the way I built it is already obsolete.

Now, with the Breaking Development Conference in town and a few recent responsive site launches under my belt, it seemed like a good time to write up a summary of what I’ve learned, what I’m doing, and where I think all of this is going.

First, a quick aside. I didn’t attend the conference. I would have liked to, but as an independent developer I never seem able to justify the standard $500-per-day rate most conferences charge. That doesn’t mean the conferences don’t have value; they’re just not for me.

Before we begin

There are a few caveats I want to lay down before I start talking about responsive web design:

This stuff is changing… fast. Anything I write here may become foolishly out of date by the time I hit the “Publish” button. Responsive web design is a work in progress, and there are no rules (yet).

What I’m doing may not be “by the book,” proper-name Responsive Web Design. The book is great, and there are “experts” who have much deeper knowledge of these strategies than I do. But as I said above, there are no rules (yet). I want to describe the practical techniques I am employing on actual live web projects, under often less-than-ideal circumstances.

Every website is different. The company is different. Its audience is different. The content and style and context where it will be viewed are different. The balance between showing off fancy new features on high-resolution tablet displays and supporting corporate IT departments that are still straggling with Windows XP and Internet Explorer 6 will vary. In short, what I am doing may not work for you. But I hope it can give you some ideas that will.

A practical baseline

My goal with responsive design is to get the biggest “bang for my (client’s) buck.” I recently read a about a study that found almost 4,000 different Android devices in a site’s access logs, with many of them only appearing in the logs once. It is not possible to account for all of these variations. And, after its primary goal of providing an optimal user experience across a variety of devices, not needing to account for each of them individually is the second biggest purpose of responsive design. (That’s also, arguably, its biggest practical benefit.) By building on a fluid, flexible structure from the beginning, a site will look good regardless of slight variations in its presentation.

But I’m not starting from scratch. I work with a number of designers who deliver their work to me in a variety of formats (usually Adobe software). They’re tremendously talented, but they don’t all have a full working knowledge of fluid grids and all of the other considerations that go into responsive web design. So my job is largely to translate these “traditional” web designs into something that works, more or less, with a responsive approach.

I’m targeting three basic screen types: computer (desktop or laptop, including iPad in horizontal orientation), tablet (primarily iPad in vertical orientation, but also smaller tablets like the Kindle Fire or the Nook Color), and smartphone (primarily iPhone, but also Android and Windows Phone). Additionally, I am trying to balance a Mobile First approach with support for Internet Explorer 7 and 8. (I am fortunate to be in a position not to need to worry much about IE6 anymore, and IE9 plays well with CSS3 media queries.) In some cases I am also targeting “very large” computer displays, those with a horizontal resolution of 1280 or above, with a scaled-up layout.

So, instead of accounting for 4,000+ different screens, I’m aiming at 3 (or 4) general screen categories. I am also accounting for two basic browser categories: IE 7 and 8, and everything else. (Yes, if you approach it in the right way, it’s really that simple. Almost.)

Fixed, yet flexible

With this “practical baseline” in mind, and working primarily with traditional fixed-width web designs as a starting point, I’ve established break points (widths at which the layout changes significantly) at around 700 pixels (varying by site between 640 and 720); at 960 pixels for the “standard” computer (and horizontal iPad) layouts; and, for the “very large” displays, at 1200 pixels. This allows for a traditional fixed-width web design approach to be used, rather than accounting for a completely fluid layout across all screen sizes. It may sound like a cop-out, but I find it to be a very helpful way to get things done when collaborating with designers who are not living and breathing this stuff the way I do every day.

For screens below my “around 700” threshold, I drop into a fully-fluid, single-column layout targeted at the smartphone user experience. In these cases there may be other significant changes to the layout, such as collapsing content blocks into expandable buttons, allowing users to quickly see what’s on the page without having to scroll endlessly. (This is not a radical invention of my own… it’s more-or-less how the mobile version of Wikipedia functions.)

In part two, I will get into the details of how I built out a pair of recent websites, including a few code examples, to show how the HTML and CSS fit together, and how I balance the seemingly incompatible worlds of mobile-first and IE8.

My (just-discovered) workaround to the WebKit letter-spacing bug

Update (5/29/2012): Upon working further with the project that formed the basis of this post, I discovered that my solution did not work, or at least, no longer worked. It’s not uncommon as I get deeper into a project with a large CSS file that there are subtle, inadvertent effects of the various CSS properties that get added along the way. Looking back now, I can’t determine for sure whether my solution did once work with the simpler version of the site, and something else I added later counteracted it, or if I was just too eager about a solution to realize it never quite worked in the first place. As a result, I had considered deleting this post entirely, but I have decided to leave it live, to further the discussion of the topic, or at the very least to serve as a monument to my challenges.

WebKit, the rendering engine “under the hood” in both Safari and Chrome, has a known issue handling the CSS letter-spacing property at certain small increments, and at certain font sizes.

Specifically, if defining letter-spacing in increments smaller than 1px or 0.1em, it seems to just ignore the property altogether… except at larger-than-default sizes.

I typically use em or % these days to define text sizes in CSS. So in my situation, I’ve found that my letter-spacing: 0.05em works if I also specify font-size: 125% (or larger), but if I have font-size set to 100% or less, the letter-spacing gets ignored.

Typically, after loading reset.css, I set a baseline font size for the document with body { font-size: 100%; } (or some size… actually it’s usually 80% but these days I’ve been leaning towards larger type).

I decided to play around with this a bit to see if I could resolve the letter-spacing issue, and I found a nice, easy solution that works at least for the particular site I’m currently testing it on. Your experience may vary, depending on how your HTML is structured and how complex your design is.

Here’s the solution:

body {
  font-size: 125%;
  letter-spacing: 0.05em;
  line-height: 1.3em;
}

body>* {
  font-size: 85%;
  line-height: 1.3em;
}

You may want to adjust the exact values of font-size to suit your needs. (And, yes, I’m aware that mathematically 125% and 85% don’t cancel each other out, but they’re close enough for my purposes.) It’s important to include the line-height property in body>* to define your target line height; otherwise your lines will be too far apart. Set it to whatever your ideal value is. (I usually prefer line-height: 1.5em personally, but for larger type, as on the site I’m currently working on, it gets too spaced-out.)

So what’s going on here? Well, strangely, it seems WebKit can actually render smaller type with line-spacing less than 1px or 0.1em just fine, but it won’t unless somewhere in the “cascade” the type has been defined as being a certain amount larger than 100%. I don’t get it, but until the bug (which it seems clearly to be after all of this) gets fixed, at least this seems to be a reasonably clean workaround.

It’s very important that you use body>* and not just body *. If you don’t know why, well… try it out and see. (The upshot: we’re applying a uniform scaling-down across the board on all elements directly under body, which is practically the same as just defining our target font size directly on body itself, but with the benefit of working around the letter-spacing bug.)

Note: I have only tested this using em as the unit of measure for letter-spacing. I’m aware of the issue with px as well, but I’m not sure this solution will work for that. But… really… just use em instead!

The :first-child conundrum

Update (April 24, 2024): Yeah, this is a really old post. :first-of-type has existed for years now. Maybe it even existed when I wrote this in 2012, but I wasn’t aware of it.

I like to think I’m a pretty adept CSS developer. I may not have written the book, but I have a solid understanding of CSS and can do some sophisticated things with it.

But one place I always get snagged with CSS is in using the :first-child pseudoclass. The idea behind :first-child is that you can apply different styles to the first child element inside a parent element than for the rest of the instances of that child element inside the same parent.

A way I end up wanting to use it a lot is to give the first child different margins than the rest. Maybe most of them need margin-top: 2em; for instance, but I want the first one to be flush to the top of the parent by using margin-top: 0; to override the default margin.

The full CSS might end up looking like this:

div>h2 { margin-top: 2em; }
div>h2:first-child { margin-top: 0; }

And then that would be put together with some HTML like this:

<div id=”content”>

<h2>First header</h2>
<p>This is the first paragraph!</p>

<h2>Second header</h2>
<p>And, surprise! This is the second paragraph!</p>

</div>

So far, so good. The problem is, what if you stick something else into the <div> before the first <h2> that isn’t another <h2>? Say, something like this:

<div id=”content”>

<div class=”floating_sidebar”>This should be floating to
the right of the content.</div>

<h2>First header</h2>
<p>This is the first paragraph!</p>

<h2>Second header</h2>
<p>And, surprise! This is the second paragraph!</p>

</div>

You may have guessed at this point that I’m not describing a hypothetical situation here. This is a stripped-down version of exactly what I’m building right now. The problem is, now the first <h2> is no longer the first child element of the parent <div> overall, so the :first-child CSS gets ignored.

True, it’s not the first child element, altogether, inside the parent. But it is the first <h2> child inside the parent. I can understand how, in other circumstances — say, if the inserted <div> wasn’t a float — you’d want the h2:first-child not to apply here. But in general it seems to me that if you’re specifying a tag with your :first-child, it should only matter that it’s the first tag of that type under the parent, even if there are other different tags before it.

I guess the real solution here would be to create another pseudo-class that does what I want. Now I just need to convince the standards folks and the browser makers to do that.

Note: The sample HTML was kind of a mess when I originally posted this. That’s what happens when you write a blog post in a hurry before rushing out the door for a meeting. It has now been corrected, and I made some other edits for clarity while I was at it.

Bracing for the HD web

Joshua Johnson has an excellent new post over on Design Shack called Ready or Not, Here Comes HD Web Design, discussing adapting your web design techniques for the imminent HD revolution, being led by the new iPad.

I’ve been adapting my designs for the Retina Display on the iPhone 4/4S for a while now, but it’s easy enough to build a responsive web design that just shrinks down large desktop website images to half their size for display on a tiny iPhone screen. Making an essentially desktop-sized display support high-resolution graphics is a whole other story, and even though I knew (or presumed, along with the rest of the world) that a Retina iPad was coming, I think some small part of me was still in denial about what it would mean for web design.

Well, that future is here. Sure, most of the world is not browsing the web on a Retina Display iPad. But if you think the HD revolution ends there, think again. It’s just getting started. I’m about to enter the implementation phase on a handful of big web projects over the next month. Accommodating the new iPad’s display is going to be one of my top tasks.

I’ve been thinking for the past month or so that I was going to need to address this, and I’ve made the decision that, moving forward, on any site that has responsive web design as a component (which will probably be all sites I do), full-size “Retina Display” graphics are essential.

I posted a comment on Joshua Johnson’s post, where I noted that “Retina” (or, to avoid using Apple’s marketing term, “HD web”) graphics don’t really need to be 326 pixels per inch (ppi), the iPhone 4/4S’s resolution, or even 264 ppi, the new iPad’s resolution.

The standard practice with web images has always been to render them at 72 ppi, but the fact is, browsers don’t care what resolution an image is set to. A pixel is a pixel, and web images get displayed at the screen’s native resolution (unless, of course, you resize the image dynamically in the browser using HTML dimension attributes or CSS). The Retina Display approach Apple uses is to simply double the resolution (quadrupling the number of pixels). Web images by default get “pixel-doubled” in this scenario, displaying at the same relative size as they would if the iPad still had a low-res display, but appearing pixilated or blurry as a result.

You don’t need to render your images at 264 ppi for display on the new iPad. In fact, you can leave the resolution at 72 ppi, because the browser still doesn’t care. (Well, maybe it does; I haven’t actually had an opportunity to test it, but I strongly suspect the answer is no.) You just need to make the pixel dimensions of the image twice what they were before. In fact, even if you do change the resolution, you still need to double the dimensions. That’s the key.

After mulling all of this over for the past week, I’ve decided I’m going to have to get a new iPad (what a hardship, I know). I could technically do this work without it, but I think it’s important to be able to see what I’m producing, if for no other reason than to remind myself how important it is.

This is going to be an ongoing process, and because web design (or, more accurately, web design implementation — I usually work with designers who produce the initial UI in Illustrator or Photoshop) is only one part of my job, I can’t give it my undivided attention. But it’s something I am preparing now to immerse myself in as fully as possible. From now on, this is just how I do things. And with that in mind, there are some key points to consider:

1. Some images are more important to represent high-res than others. Logos, absolutely, 100%. Design elements that are on all pages (backgrounds, borders, navigation) come next. One-off photos are not as critical, but probably still are if they’re on the home page. But consider the next point as well.

2. Bandwidth is a concern. I’ve been somewhat dismissive of this up to now, as I’ve been focusing on high-res logos for the iPhone’s Retina Display — it can just take the regular web images and show them at half size to achieve high-res — but if you’re suddenly talking about downloading 4 or 5 high-res photos for a home page slideshow, it’s going to be a problem. Making users with standard resolution download unnecessarily large images is bad; making iPad users eat up their 4G data plan downloading your perfect-looking photos is bad too. Most of the attention paid to bandwidth in this discussion that I’ve seen so far has focused on the former, but both need to be addressed.

3. CSS and SVG. Joshua Johnson talks about this in his post. If we can render elements using CSS instead of images (things like curved corners, gradients, shadows, etc.), we should do that. More complex vector graphics can be displayed in SVG. All modern browsers now (finally) support SVG. Up to now it’s been a cool but essentially useless technology, due to lack of widespread support. But IE8 and earlier don’t support SVG, so if those browsers matter (and unfortunately they probably still do), you need a backup plan.

It is an exciting time to be working in web design and development. More and more, the challenges center around adapting your techniques to take advantage of cool new features and capabilities, not accommodating the limitations of crap browsers. But they’re still challenges, and we’re just beginning to discover their depth, along with their solutions.

Update: Over at Daring Fireball, John Gruber just linked to Duncan Davidson’s post detailing an issue with WebKit (the rendering engine inside Safari) automatically scaling down images above a certain size, specifically over 2 megapixels. Looks like sending huge, high-res images to the new iPad might present even more challenges than the ones I’d been considering.

I still don’t have that new iPad, so we’ll see what happens when I get it. (Tomorrow?)

Update #2 (March 25, 2012): A few more days have passed, and more has been learned on this topic. Duncan Davidson has a follow-up post that further explores the issue and a tentative path forward.

P.S. I did get that new iPad, and Duncan’s demo of an 1800-pixel JPEG on the iPad’s Retina Display is truly impressive. But what I find really interesting about it is that the 1800-pixel version of the photo looks better than the 900-pixel version even on a regular computer display… because, as I’ve observed, WebKit downscales images better than Photoshop does.

Responsive Web Design: On embracing the web’s uncertainty principle

What do Werner Heisenberg and Ethan Marcotte have in common? First and foremost is probably that I have just mentioned them in the same sentence. Second, whereas Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle paved the way for quantum physics (which revealed that matter and energy can exist as both a particle and a wave), Ethan Marcotte’s Responsive Web Design promises to usher in a new era where we discover that desktop and mobile websites, too, can be one and the same.

My analogy may be stretching thin, but the point remains that we are entering a new phase in web design. We can no longer assume websites are being viewed on a desktop computer screen of certain minimum dimensions. We also can no longer justify building and maintaining two (or more) discrete sites, shunting mobile users off to a scaled-back, limited experience while allowing desktop users access to the full version. And all of this means that we must consider the dynamic (and, in fact, increasingly so) nature of the web as a medium from the earliest steps in the design process.

Many examples of Responsive Web Design are beginning to crop up (including this site), but the best high-profile example so far is a site Marcotte himself consulted on: the new BostonGlobe.com. I’m hopeful that soon this design approach will become the norm for most websites.

But the challenges facing those of us who are ready to embrace Responsive Web Design are many. Getting a handle on the use of CSS3 media queries is the first and probably easiest of these, if you’re comfortable with code. Most of the leading innovators in web design have long worked directly in code — and knowing and working directly with HTML5 and CSS3 is pretty much a requirement for effective use of the Responsive Web Design approach.

But I would guess that the majority of web design going on today is still being done the “old fashioned” way. A graphic designer, usually with experience primarily in print, puts together a layout in one of Adobe’s creaky monolithic Creative Suite applications (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign), then (if we’re lucky) hands off that design file to a developer to build out as HTML. If the developer is with it, they will follow best practices and web standards, building out semantic HTML document structures with design properties defined in CSS. (No tables, please.)

There are many potential points of failure in this arrangement, because a design in an Adobe application bears little resemblance “under the hood” to an HTML/CSS layout in a web browser. It’s not just that the canvas you’re painting on is different, although there’s that. It’s that they’re not even both canvases. No matter how much Adobe tries to ease the transition for print designers, any process that forces you to start by specifying page dimensions just isn’t going to translate effectively to the nebulous, dynamic format of a website.

“Design in the browser” is the new mantra. And again, that’s great if the person designing knows how to do that. But many designers don’t, and it’s not necessarily fair to expect them to. The entire process needs to change. Developers and designers need to work together more collaboratively, and earlier on in the project. For years I’ve been promoting the importance of designers understanding HTML/CSS and the capabilities (and limitations) of web browsers, even if they don’t necessarily write the code themselves. It’s not just about knowing what certain browsers can or can’t do (like the fact that Internet Explorer didn’t support layered backgrounds until version 9). It’s about knowing all of the things browsers can do that can’t possibly be replicated or even represented in a static design built in an Adobe CS app.

There are so many aspects of this that have always been important (how best to slice up a design; what’s background/foreground; what should be images and what shouldn’t; when to use JPEG vs. PNG; optimal page widths; where the “fold” is and whether or not it exists even as a concept; the fluid nature of vertical elements; how users interact with elements and how the page gives feedback using JavaScript and/or CSS; etc.), but now on top of all of these concerns we have the additional complexity — and opportunity — of working with different classes of devices with radically different screen sizes, capabilities, and interaction methods.

Again, “design in the browser” is the ideal. But until we get there, it’s essential that graphic designers who aspire to work with the web take the time to really understand the medium: how it works, how varied it can be, how quickly it changes. Then, even if the designs are, for now, still delivered in an Adobe format, their structure and content will at least be better informed by the practical realities of the form they will finally take in a web browser.

So, as a designer, what’s the best way to get informed? Working with a developer who understands and is enthusiastic about Responsive Web Design is a great option (hint, hint), but at the very least I recommend reading Ethan Marcotte’s book. In fact, the entire A Book Apart series is essential reading for anyone who wants to build forward-looking websites. The future is coming. We may not know what it will look like yet, but it’s a safe bet that tools and techniques that were already antiquated a decade ago are not the way to get there.

I don’t want to end on a down note, so I’ll pose this final challenge to inspire and motivate any designers who might be reading this. Despite the potentially intimidating appearance of code, web standards are first and foremost about simplicity. The dynamic duo of HTML5 and CSS3 are a world apart from the hairy mess of table layouts and <font> tags that dominated the early web. Watching a design take shape directly in the web browser can even be fun! And with the powerful interactive capabilities of JavaScript tools like jQuery, and the typographic world that has been opened up recently with font embedding services like Typekit and Google Web Fonts, there’s never been a better time to be a web designer. The more you know about what goes into realizing your designs in a web browser, the better you will be at your job and the more opportunities you will have.