applications for the plethora of possible devices is ultimately unimportant. That we have some means to build them at all, and that people can hopefully use and enjoy them, however transient they may be, is. Yes, it is a great article! The real question right now is what will be the future and the true answer for the multi-screen world. Will it be adaptive or responsive? At this juncture it looks like responsive is winning that war...for now. And what about the use of Photoshop and similar tools, how will these tools play a role in the multi-screen world. You can explore this notion as seen in the article: The first part of the article only gives us the by now well known main reason to create responsive designs (catering to all sorts of viewport sizes). The second part leaves me with the impression that the author misunderstood Ethan Marcotte's comparison with architecture. In my opinion the main reason not to use a responsive design is that users use different devices for different purposes and in different contexts. If you can better cater to those different needs with device specific designs then you should not use a responsive design. Hi Theo, sorry the architecture reference was nothing to do with Ethan's original comparison/reference to architecture in the notion of responsive web design. I am well aware of that and reference it many times in my own book on responsive web design. It was more the sentiment of people websites as