Fixed, rubber or adaptive?

Question

HTML

I recently started learning HTML and CSS. And almost immediately the question arose: which design is more promising? I made up several medium-sized fixed ones, one rubber with grief in half ... and one simple adaptive one ... as far as I understand now, the most promising is adaptive? Or is it not? I still do not understand how in the case of adaptive design to put an image as background? explain who knows. Should it be vector or not?
PS
It turned out several questions at once in one, but it makes no sense to create a separate topic for each.

Answer 1

The most promising design is the one you know best. The ideal is to know everything.
The fact is that there are many directions of projects and for each some design is better, some is worse.

Answer 2

Responsive layout means changing the size, position, visibility of elements depending on the user's screen size and other parameters (via css media queries). Fluid layout usually just drags the main element with the content. It is useful to know both approaches, and no one bothers to use them at the same time. The image on the background is placed as usual, you can make several sizes for different screen sizes.

Answer 3

Strictly speaking, the layout is the same everywhere. What do you use divs in adaptive, what is in fixed, what is in rubber. And it is simply impossible to learn how to make adaptive websites without being able to make a fix.
The difference is only in the arrangement of elements in the user's browser.
In general, you just need to learn how to typeset, and then you yourself will understand what differs from what and how.

Answer 4

For several years, no option has won and apparently will not win. So you need to choose which one you like best and which one does not limit perception.

Answer 5

There will always be sites where there is so little content (we won’t talk about expediency) that it just doesn’t make the slightest sense to “rubber” them. So that even static layout will be alive for a long time. For example, business card sites of various Vector+ LLC with 5 pages.
At the same time, it is the rubber and adaptive layout that allows you to fill the workspace with something useful as efficiently as possible. Well, of course, when there is something to fill in :) For example, news portals, or various online services.

Answer 6

In general, according to the "evolution" of web design, everything went like this: fixed> rubber> adaptive.
Fixed is good if the page width is supposed to be small, and viewing on mobile devices is not needed.
Rubber adjusts to the size of the monitor, however, it is not suitable for working on mobile devices.
Adaptive will fit into everything: tablet, smartphone, netbook, etc...
__
Conclusion: it all depends on your goals, skills and abilities.

Answer 7

For starters, I would advise using 2 frameworks: skeleton (easier) and bootstrap (harder). Realizing your thoughts, you will receive new information, which you can later apply on any site.

Answer 8

Here's a nice article on the differences between layouts "Responsive Responsive: Understanding the Terminology" . But I think the classification is conditional.
Which technique is the most promising - the question is not entirely correct .. It all depends on the specific project - where you can apply adaptive design, and somewhere it's better to make a mobile version.
First of all, you need to understand the differences between these approaches, both in terms of design and layout. If you understand how to correctly build a grid and use relative units of measurement, then no problems with rubber, responsiveness, etc. should not occur. All this is quite simple.
If you have difficulty understanding responsive layout, then I advise you to go over the book"Responsive Web Design" . When it comes to understanding, look at the sources of grids in frameworks like boostrap , zurb foundation (it uses a mobile-first approach), and advanced grids like jeet.gs