Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 399 posts

Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone

#291

Post by cratermoon »

contravariant wrote: post #271
bcrosby95 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the forest for the trees here. Sites are using pixels as a proxy for physical device size. Which obviously breaks. I doubt people actually intend to display mobile view on a 720px, 12" wide device. They're only working correctly if you ignore the intent and only look at the technical implementation. The technical implementation is flawed and doesn't accomplish the intent.

But the OP is using pixels as a proxy for screen size as well, they're deliberately presenting their screen as 720x1080 to make the fonts bigger because they are too far from the screen. The stupidest thing to do at that stage would be to say "ah I see you're running a low resolution on a huge screen, let me make all the text tiny".

> they're deliberately presenting their screen as 720x1080 to make the fonts bigger because they are too far from the screen.

As I read this I:

1. am wearing my computer reading glasses +1.5

2. have my browser set to zoom HN by 125%

3. am reading distance from the screen

I know programming and tech in general is a young man's game, but let's at least try not to be ignorantly ageist & ableist.

Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone

#292

Post by cratermoon »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #80
jefftk wrote: post #48

Sites are not detecting a portrait screen and deciding that they're displaying on a phone. Someone who switches their monitor to portrait, or resizes a window to be taller than it is wide, is still going to get the desktop view. In this case the author is scaling their resolution, and so their browser is presenting itself to sites as 720px wide. Sites see that and show a layout optimized for a screen of that width. T…

This doesn't address the author's central argument, which is that websites need an effortless way of letting fonts become bigger without affecting the entire layout. I've wanted it too. I don't really care if some text gets cut off on headers and looks weird, I just want to read stuff from the comfort of my bed with my laptop a few feet away.

I just have bad eyes. I complained once about text size here and a lot of people just said, "use your browser zoom", completely ignoring how layouts not scale or reflow.

Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone

#294

Post by cratermoon »

sgerenser wrote: post #158
sn_master wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't use HackerNews on my monitor without scaling. If I press Ctrl+0 on Chrome, the site becomes unusable.

So it’s not just me. I think HN is the only site I use that I’ve bothered to configure custom zoom factor for.

It's definitely not just you. And I really get sick of the people saying things like "just zoom" or "set a custom minimum font size".

When I read that, I read, "we're ableist and here's a few crumbs so we can feel better about ourselves".

Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone

#295

Post by Retric »

contravariant wrote: post #271
bcrosby95 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the forest for the trees here. Sites are using pixels as a proxy for physical device size. Which obviously breaks. I doubt people actually intend to display mobile view on a 720px, 12" wide device. They're only working correctly if you ignore the intent and only look at the technical implementation. The technical implementation is flawed and doesn't accomplish the intent.

But the OP is using pixels as a proxy for screen size as well, they're deliberately presenting their screen as 720x1080 to make the fonts bigger because they are too far from the screen. The stupidest thing to do at that stage would be to say "ah I see you're running a low resolution on a huge screen, let me make all the text tiny".

More to the point he is using multiple edge cases at the same time and dislikes the result he’s getting. He then suggests other people accommodate him.

Sorry, as long as the site still works it’s simply not worth it.

Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone

#296

Post by richardwhiuk »

nofunsir wrote: post #126
altcognito wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was tried in the mid-late oughts was it not? It is nearly impossible to logically derive what should increase in sized and what should not. Should the space given to sidebars increase? Should those sidebars disappear? What about headers and footers? How will the overfloat be treated? A single line, double lines? What about captions underneath images? How do you handle text that happens to be embedded within imag…

God forbid we use the scroll bar.

Horizontal scrolling perform disastrously badly in UX testing.

Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone

#297

Post by mixmastamyk »

I've had a second portrait monitor for about 15 years now, and highly recommend it. I don't have many issues possibly due to my screens being 4k.

However, the responsive decision point is regarding the width of the viewport or window. To my knowledge sites don't care about the height at all. So the fact it is in portrait orientation (vertical) is not pertinent.

Once in a while I do have to zoom or resize the window if its size is not large, but it is not a burden that I really notice.

Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone

#298

Post by capableweb »

ironmagma wrote: post #274
NeutronStar wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's your solution? How do we differentiate between a tablet user and someone who decided to shrink their windows?

Copying from elsewhere in this thread: `@media (pointer: coarse)`

Don't think that's quite right either. Pointer coarse would just refer to the device used for pointing. Using a tablet with a mouse would be "pointer: fine" but it's still a tablet.

As always, the issue isn't black and white. There is no solution that always works, because it depends on what you're targeting. If you want to scale elements to be easier clickable for people who might devices where it's harder to click/tap accurately, then "pointer: coarse" makes sense. If you're thinking about scaling elements on the website, some other solution fits better. Which one? Again depends on what you're aiming for.

Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone

#299

Post by StillBored »

I think he is totally doing this wrong, firefox has a zoom text option (that was the default years ago).

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/font-size-and-zoom-incr...

That keeps the layout/images/etc the same, while bumping the font px/em.

Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone

#300

Post by freebreakfast »

mywittyname wrote: post #238
freebreakfast wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This requires the use of JavaScript to style a website.

Is that really an issue? Javascript is basically universally supported on the web. Users with NoScript will just have to live without some functionality. I'm sure they are used to that already, since a large fraction of websites use JS for styling. (I use NoScript)

> Is that really an issue?

Setting aside the debate about separation of concerns. Yes, it has notable performance and UX implications.

> Users with NoScript will just have to live without some functionality.

Why should we prioritize OP's use case over that of NoScript users?

Post reply on HN