"beautiful" and "responsive" have become two of the biggest "buzzword bingo" words of the web these last few years. So many people telling you that their stuff is beautiful that the word starts to lose value.
"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.
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.
Well, at that point, it's really just a matter of opinion.
I don't have much interest in a lengthy argument about this, but FYI, the term "Responsive Web Design" was coined by Ethan Marcotte in an article for A List Apart in May 2010[1]. What it means is only a No True Scotsman type of argument if you choose to ignore the original source, or maybe if you want to argue about whether "responsive web design" and "Responsive Web Design" mean different things, neither of which seems particularly constructive.
Sure, but if you want to drive on the road, it's still at least a bit helpful to know that the framework is not, in fact, a boat. (I wonder if someone could give a Devil's Advocate position on the advantages of a non-responsive framework...)
Advantages of a non-responsive framework:
Less complexity. This leads to more speed and reliability in terms of development, deployment, and maintenance.
If I was building something that saw no significant advantages from being responsive (e.g. an ATM GUI) I'd definitely skip it.
