221–230 of 399 posts
Just because my horizontal resolution is around 1200, I am not on a tablet. It's amazing how many websites are incredibly unusable when displayed 2-up on my 27" monitor. There's so much screen estate, but I often literally have to resize the window to fullscreen to find a search or login field.
This is the worst when you're displaying two sites side by side on a 1080p screen.
I remember learning how to get my site to display decently on different screen sizes. I got an abridged history of past attempts: "handheld" CSS media type, then media features "device-height/width, resolution, pointer, orientation, aspect ratio", some people try to use the User Agent, others target a huge list of specific device resolutions, webkit has a device pixel ratio?, it all seemed like a huge mess. Then it t…
If you were mobile-first, you'd use min-width media queries rather than max-width.
Wait, so sniffing on screen resolution is the way web developers distinguish desktops from mobile? That's just crazy . There should IMO be a preference sent, "I'm on a portable, touch-enabled device". I'm guessing it doesn't exist because it would add a bit to the fingerprint.
Yes, they define a bunch of @media filters in css for different known screen widths. You usually get a surprising look when pointing out that it is crazy. “How else would you know that?” Something as simple as “use-case: handheld | bellyheld | desktop” property? Css designers missed this opportunity completely.
At least these sites have a desktop oriented UI. Modern Gnome just assumes you're always on a phone (even though the phones capable of running Gnome are still extremely niche.)
I feel like I must be missing something, because I don't understand this author's point at all. "Lots of websites think “Vertical Screen == Mobile User”!" No, they don't - They think a 720px wide screen is a tablet user, which is probably a fair assumption. I could equally write "Just because I browse zoomed in 500% doesn't mean I'm on a mobile" When you zoom in, things get bigger, so fewer of them will fit on the sc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and webdevs have been trying for over 10 years now to figure out how to get this right. Has no one just stopped to consider having a browser send a `prefersMobileView` or `viewport:phone` or anything like that? I can remember back a few years ago, an iPhone 6+, turned sideways could get a desktop view on some sites... simply because it met the requirements set by the author. Now, the author's assumptions were wr…
Mobile vs Desktop is not a clean division: screens run the full range of widths. Instead, developers should: * Lay out content based on the viewport width, in CSS pixels. * Use larger tap targets for coarse pointers ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/poin... ).
This is wrong because the viewport width is not the same as the monitor width or the DPI: especially on big monitors running the browser fullscreen is very hard to use (my browser rarely exceeds more than ~50% width on a 2560x1440 monitor and even when i use a 1366x768 monitor - which btw is at 22", not some tiny laptop one - i very rarely use it maximized).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can read long lines just fine, and I like that the full width of the viewport is used. Because HN is designed so simply, you can trivially get the layout you want (half width lines) and I can also get the layout I want. If HN instead tried to artificially limit the viewport in code (which is something lots of web developers do), they would break all sorts of other use cases for no reason. That's what I mean when I…
> Because HN is designed so simply, you can trivially get the layout you want (half width lines) and I can also get the layout I want. Except you're ignoring mobile devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet quotes don't wrap to any specific size, so you end up with an awful horizontal scroll bar. There is no way to format your text, even stuff that's available since MS Word 1.0, such as bold or italic. Even science papers have formatting so I don't buy the "overuse of styles" BS. There is no way to have avatars or some other ways to distinguish users (or mods!) to make this place feel more like a community in re…
>And yet quotes don't wrap to any specific size, so you end up with an awful horizontal scroll bar. HN doesn't have a "quotes" feature. Some users here have the unfortunate habit of abusing the code formatting feature for quotes. >There is no way to have avatars or some other ways to distinguish users Thank god. There's a lot I miss about forums, but avatars and huge signature blocks are better left in the trashbin o…
I feel like I must be missing something, because I don't understand this author's point at all. "Lots of websites think “Vertical Screen == Mobile User”!" No, they don't - They think a 720px wide screen is a tablet user, which is probably a fair assumption. I could equally write "Just because I browse zoomed in 500% doesn't mean I'm on a mobile" When you zoom in, things get bigger, so fewer of them will fit on the sc…
I have one 1920x1080 monitor and one 1440p monitor. On both monitors, I regularly make it so that each screen is used by 2 applications.
A lot of websites think 960x980 is mobile. *half* of a 1080p screen.
It's bad and a huge assumption on their part that their website should only be seen in full-screen mode, or half of some 4k screen when the most popular resolution is ignored in a productivity usage.