Personally I'm a supporter of sites with a mix of the two.

• Fonts should keep the same size both in landscape and portrait. It should merely be distributed differently depending on the current screen width. As you've also showed in the mockup for A.

I feel that also scaling the text is like surrendering to a notion that "-ok, we know the text is very small in portrait mode. But if you flip the phone it should be easy to read!". I don't like this notion, and it should be avoided. The only real advantage with having the text smaller in portrait mode is that the user can see more of the page at the same time. But this can also be achieved by thoroughly thinking over the discoverability aspects while designing.

• Images, can and should be scalable though, as discussed in option B.

It's hard to have one image size that will fit into your layout perfectly no matter the screen size, wait make that impossible. I find that a small image will look puny on a big screen and a big image will be intrusive on a small screen. Plus if you find thresholds that kick in for each screen size interval you can have one layout that fits perfectly into each screen width.

I'd like to recommend you have a look at food sense who have a responsive website that really works well and looks good with five different layouts depending on the width. A funny feature is that they let some images get larger in the smaller displays because that fits better in to the narrower layout.

Personally I'm a supporter of sites with a mix of the two.

• Fonts should keep the same size both in landscape and portrait. It should merely be distributed differently depending on the current screen width. As you've also showed in the mockup for A.

I feel that also scaling the text is like surrendering to a notion that "-ok, we know the text is very small in portrait mode. But if you flip the phone it should be easy to read!". If that's your stance then size up the text in portrait mode! The only real advantage with having the text smaller in portrait mode is that the user can see more of the page at the same time. But this can also be achieved by thoroughly thinking over the discoverability aspects while designing.

• Images, can and should be scalable though, as discussed in option B.

It's hard to have one image size that will fit into your layout perfectly no matter the screen size, wait make that impossible. I find that a small image will look puny on a big screen and a big image will be intrusive on a small screen. Plus if you find thresholds that kick in for each screen size interval you can have one layout that fits perfectly into each screen width.

I'd like to recommend you have a look at food sense who have a responsive website that really works well and looks good with five different layouts depending on the width. A funny feature is that they let some images get larger in the smaller displays because that fits better in to the narrower layout.

Personally I'm a supporter of sites with a mix of the two.

• Fonts should keep the same size both in landscape and portrait. It should merely be distributed differently depending on the current screen width. As you've also showed in the mockup for A.

I feel that also scaling the text is like surrendering to a notion that "-ok, we know the text is very small in portrait mode. But if you flip the phone it should be easy to read!". I don't like this notion, and it should be avoided. The only real advantage with having the text smaller in portrait mode is that the user can see more of the page at the same time. But this can also be achieved by thoroughly thinking over the discoverability aspects while designing.

• Images, can and should be scalable though, as discussed in option B.

It's hard to have one image size that will fit into your layout perfectly no matter the screen size, wait make that impossible. I find that a small image will look puny on a big screen and a big image will be intrusive on a small screen. Plus if you find thresholds that kick in for each screen size interval you can have one layout that fits perfectly into each screen width.

I'd like recommend having a look at food sense who have a responsive website that really works well and looks good with five different layouts depending on the width. A funny feature is that they let some images get larger in the smaller displays because that fits better in to the narrower layout.

Personally I'm a supporter of sites with a mix of the two.

• Fonts should keep the same size both in landscape and portrait. It should merely be distributed differently depending on the current screen width. As you've also showed in the mockup for A.

I feel that also scaling the text is like surrendering to a notion that "-ok, we know the text is very small in portrait mode. But if you flip the phone it should be easy to read!". I don't like this notion, and it should be avoided. The only real advantage with having the text smaller in portrait mode is that the user can see more of the page at the same time. But this can also be achieved by thoroughly thinking over the discoverability aspects while designing.

• Images, can and should be scalable though, as discussed in option B.

It's hard to have one image size that will fit into your layout perfectly no matter the screen size, wait make that impossible. I find that a small image will look puny on a big screen and a big image will be intrusive on a small screen. Plus if you find thresholds that kick in for each screen size interval you can have one layout that fits perfectly into each screen width.

I'd like to recommend you have a look at food sense who have a responsive website that really works well and looks good with five different layouts depending on the width. A funny feature is that they let some images get larger in the smaller displays because that fits better in to the narrower layout.