You may have heard this line in an article by Jason Grigsby, Css media query for mobile is fool's gold, available at http://blog.cloudfour.com/css-media-query-for-mobile-is-fools-gold/.

Separate mobile websites allow reduction of bandwidth, prepare pages that are less CPU and memory intensive, and at the same time allow us to use some mobile-only features such as geolocation. Also, not all mobile browsers are wise enough to understand media queries.

That is generally true and media queries are not enough in most scenarios, but with some JavaScript (Peter-Paul Koch blog available at, http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2010/08/combining_media.html#more, describes a method to exclude some page elements or change the page structure via JS paired with media queries), it is possible to overcome many of those problems. At the same time, making a separate mobile website introduces its own problems and requires significant additional investment that can easily get to tens or hundreds of times more than the RWD solution (detecting devices, changing application logic, writing separate templates, integrating, and testing the whole thing). Also, at the end of the day, your visitors may prefer the mobile version, but this doesn't have to be the case. Users are often accessing the same content via various devices and providing consistent experience across all of them becomes more and more important.

The preceding controversy is just a part of a wider discussion on channels to provide content on the Internet. RWD and RESS are relatively new kids on the block. For years, technologies to provide content for mobile devices were being built and used, from device-detection libraries to platform-specific applications (such as iStore, Google Play, and MS). When, in 2010, US smartphone users started to spend more time using their mobile apps than browsers (Mobile App Usage Further Dominates Web, Spurred by Facebook, at http://blog.flurry.com/bid/80241/Mobile-App-Usage-Further-Dominates-Web-Spurred-by-Facebook), some hailed it as dangerous for the Web (Apps: The Web Is The Platform , available at http://blog.mozilla.org/webdev/2012/09/14/apps-the-web-is-the-platform/). A closer look at stats reveals though, that most of this time was spent on playing games. No matter how much time kids can spend playing Angry Birds now, after more than two years from then, people still prefer to read the news via a browser rather than via native mobile applications. The Future of Mobile News report from October 2012 reveals that for accessing news, 61 percent mobile users prefer a browser while 28 percent would rather use apps (Future of Mobile News, http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/future_mobile_news). The British government is not keen on apps either, as they say, "Our position is that native apps are rarely justified" (UK Digital Cabinet Office blog, at http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/2013/03/12/were-not-appy-not-appy-at-all/).

Recently, Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Web, criticized closed world apps such as those released by Apple for threatening openness and universality that the architects of the Internet saw as central to its design. He explains it the following way, "When you make a link, you can link to anything. That means people must be able to put anything on the Web, no matter what computer they have, what software they use, or which human language they speak and regardless of whether they have a wired or a wireless Internet connection." This kind of thinking goes in line with the RWD/RESS philosophy to have one URL for the same content, no matter what way you'd like to access it. Nonetheless, it is just one of the reasons why RWD became so popular during the last year.

CSS coupled with JS can get really complex (some would say messy) and requires a lot of testing on all target browsers/platforms.

That is or was true. Building RWD websites requires good CSS knowledge and some battlefield experience in this field. But hey, learning is the most important skill in this industry. It actually gets easier and easier with new tools released nearly every week.

Fluid layouts break the composition of the page; Mobile First and Progressive Enhancement mean, in fact, reducing design to a few simplistic and naive patterns.

With regard to design direction, the Mobile First concept is meant to describe the sequence of designs. First the design for a mobile should be created and then for a desktop. While there are several good reasons for using this approach, one should never forget the basic truth that at the end of the day only the quality of designs matters, not the order they were created in.

With regard to the stylesheet structure, Mobile First means that we first write statements for small screens and then add statements for wider screens, such as @media screen and (min-width: 480px). It is a design principle meant to simplify the whole thing. It is assumed here that CSS for small screens is the simplest version, which will be progressively enhanced for larger screens. The idea is smart and helps to maintain a well-structured CSS but sometimes the opposite, the Desktop First approach, seems natural. Typical examples are tables with many columns. The Mobile First principle is not a religious dogma and should not be treated as such. As a side note, it remains an open question why this is still named Mobile First, while the new iPad-related statements should come here at the end (min-width: 2000px).

There are some examples of rather poor designs made by RWD celebrities. But there are also examples of great designs that happened, thanks to the freedom that RWD gave to the web design world.