I get that responsive, in this world, means sending different layouts depending on the client.
I'm in a bind:
If I say "no Svija's not responsive", people will assume that the content doesn't change size and we'll immediately get written off as not addressing the question.
If I say "Svija is responsive" then, as you remark, people say "no, because the content doesn't adapt to the platform".
But, Svija adapts to the window: if you want bigger text, make the window bigger or zoom (currently broken, see my other comment).
So when someone says "is it responsive, yes or no?", the real answer is: it's different.
The main thing I want to emphasize (this is roughly my 20th comment like this) is:
We are committed to making accessible content. It's OBVIOUS that a platform that can't offer accessible content can't be a serious alternative to current technology.
How exactly we implement it remains to be seen. The first thing is to get some users and establish that the basic premise is interesting.
I get that responsive, in this world, means sending different layouts depending on the client.
I'm in a bind:
If I say "no Svija's not responsive", people will assume that the content doesn't change size and we'll immediately get written off as not addressing the question.
If I say "Svija is responsive" then, as you remark, people say "no, because the content doesn't adapt to the platform".
But, Svija adapts to the window: if you want bigger text, make the window bigger or zoom (currently broken, see my other comment).
So when someone says "is it responsive, yes or no?", the real answer is: it's different.
The main thing I want to emphasize (this is roughly my 20th comment like this) is:
We are committed to making accessible content. It's OBVIOUS that a platform that can't offer accessible content can't be a serious alternative to current technology.
How exactly we implement it remains to be seen. The first thing is to get some users and establish that the basic premise is interesting.