First I want to start by saying that this article is a jumble. Gardner does not propose a definition of the word “responsive” until the penultimate section and then goes onto say that we simply use it to mean thought out web design. This read like someone was brainstorming the intro to an essay and not like an article. To me, “responsive” design just means “good” design. You designed the website well. I feel as if we are past the point of discussion regarding “responsive” design. Seeing as this article was written in 2014, it also feels dated, especially when talking about programming and UX design, those in the tech industry and beyond are constantly doing new things and having these conversations. Due to their proximity and power, talking about something from 2014 is quite literally too late. Responsive design seems to have already been defined by now. We use this term as a filler word like “abstract,” “nuance,” or “juxtaposition.” This word has already reached the point of over saturation, regardless of the desire to re-define it or define it for yourself, I believe it currently has the same association as these other ‘first-year art student’ words. To Gardner’s own point: “it is owned by all of us and none of us at the same time.” The word responsive is now mere matter. Every time I use it, even in this reading response, I feel its meaning draining. Responsive is embedded in our vocabulary when discussing the topic of UX design and of web design. Maybe the word “responsive” has simply already been ruined for me by my father who is a programmer or my mother who is a UX designer. I feel as if I have nothing to add to this conversation. Nobody owns a word, people are simply known for popularizing the use of a word and then people want to discuss it as if that will change how pop culture uses it.