Every agency says responsive. Almost none test on an actual mid-range Android on a patchy connection, which is what most of your visitors are using.
Responsive means the layout adapts to screen size, which nearly every site now does. What separates a genuinely good mobile experience is designing the phone version first, testing on real mid-range devices rather than a resized browser, and getting the touch details right: tap target size, tappable phone numbers and forms that work with a mobile keyboard.
A squashed desktop layout is technically responsive and practically unusable: four screens of scrolling before anything useful, text requiring pinching, and tables running off the side. Designing the phone version first produces a different result.
Browser emulation is useful and it lies about two things: how the page feels on an actual touch screen, and how it performs on a mid-range phone on a poor connection. Keep a cheap Android handset and open the site on it.
Tap targets at least 44 pixels with spacing between them, primary actions within thumb reach, and no functionality that depends on hover, because hover does not exist on a phone.
Phone numbers that dial, addresses that open maps, WhatsApp that opens a chat. Obvious, and still missing from a large share of the sites we audit.
Correct input types so the number pad appears for phone fields, no fields that reject spaces in phone numbers, and short enough to complete standing up.
Google indexes the mobile version. Content or structured data present only on desktop effectively does not exist, which still catches out sites with separate mobile layouts.
| Symptom | What it means |
|---|---|
| Text needs pinching to read | Desktop design squashed |
| Four screens before the offer | Nothing was cut for mobile |
| Tables scroll off the side | Desktop layout unadapted |
| Phone number not tappable | Nobody tested on a phone |
| Form rejects a spaced phone number | Validation written for desktop |
| Menu holds nine items | Navigation never rethought |
One of these is a bug. Four is a design that never seriously considered the majority of its audience.
| Ask them | Good answer | Walk away if |
|---|---|---|
| Who owns the site and accounts? | You do, in your own name | Accounts in the agency's name |
| Can I open three live examples? | URLs you can check yourself | Screenshots and a PDF |
| What is explicitly not included? | A written list with change pricing | Everything is included |
| How will we know it worked? | A metric agreed before work starts | Activity reports |
The exclusions question decides whether the final invoice matches the quote.
Not quite. Responsive means the layout adapts to screen size, which almost every site does now. Mobile-friendly means it was actually designed for a phone, with content prioritised, touch targets sized correctly and forms that work with a mobile keyboard.
On real devices, particularly a mid-range Android on mobile data. Browser emulation shows layout but not how it feels to tap or how it performs on a slow connection, and those are where most problems are.
At least 44 by 44 pixels with spacing between adjacent controls. Mis-taps on a form or a call button lose the enquiry outright, which makes this more consequential than it sounds.
Yes. Mobile-first indexing is the default, so content or structured data present only on desktop may as well not exist. This still catches out sites maintaining separate mobile layouts.
Almost never. Separate mobile sites create duplicate content problems, double the maintenance and drift out of sync with the desktop version. One responsive site designed mobile-first is simpler and works better.
Check your own analytics rather than an average, and for most local and consumer-facing NCR businesses it is comfortably over seventy percent. B2B and enterprise skew more towards desktop.
Send us what you are trying to fix and we will tell you what it takes, what it costs, and whether we are the right people for it. If we are not, we will say so.