Datasheet

FUTURE-PROOF WEB DESIGN
28
Static sites have little going on under the hood. What you see is really what you get.  e
bene ts of this traditional form of layout are that once you’ve ensured the content scales
appropriately, little else beyond the visual arrangement can go wrong. With dynamic
sites, you may  nd that if scripting becomes unavailable or interaction requires additional
user involvement, trouble can occur. However, even with such concerns, dynamic sites
can o er a greater level of individually oriented  exibility than static sites can, so the
payo might be worth the e ort.
Consideration #4: Internal versus external
 is consideration relates to how to handle alternative device requirements. Sometimes,
designers choose a “one site rules all” approach and account for variables by using scripts
or stylistic fallbacks. Tools such as browser-detection scripts, frameworks, and media que-
ries allow the layout’s appearance to change based on a user’s needs. Although this is the
best choice (requiring little added maintenance), the major catch is that it forces you to
rethink a site’s mechanics, based on assumed scenarios of use. Figure 1-11 illustrates the
concept of a script working as a robot to “build” a site around you.
Figure 1-11: Scripts act like little robots, reporting on what will or won’t work.
If the work of designing for the lowest common denominator isn’t your cup of tea, a
quick-and-dirty solution is to provide an external site that does the job, similar to what
you may have seen in mobile-speci c sites. In these optimized layouts, however, you’ll
often  nd that content is either “dumbed down” to reduce the pressure of the layout or
condensed to make things more lightweight.  ese layouts, however, beg the question, “If
it’s not needed on a mobile site, why would you want it on the desktop?”
04_9781119978770-ch01.indd 2804_9781119978770-ch01.indd 28 10/25/11 1:08 PM10/25/11 1:08 PM