It would be really nice if there was something in the browser header to indicate whether 1) The user had a touch interface and 2) The user had a persistent on-screen cursor (both may be true) but, leaking that information also opens the door for more accurate browser fingerprinting so I guess, once again, we can't have nice things because of advertising.
Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone
311–320 of 399 posts
Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone
#312As a product manager, my immediate response is... not worth the time. You've chosen to have a unique setup, which is fine, but your use case represents some absolutely miniscule fraction of users. On top of that, it's not even that websites are unusable, just that they're not ideal. When you decide to do weird/special/unique stuff, don't expect the world to adapt to you. You can rotate your monitor back or live with…
[deleted]
Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real real problem is that so many sites overcomplicate their design. HN works beautifully on any window / screen size.
Sure. Now let's say you're shopping for a brand new rug for your living room. Are you going to buy it from a site the looks like HackerNews? If so, I'd venture to say you're in the minority. A used rug from Craigslist, perhaps, but a brand new rug costing hundreds, you're going to want a site that looks VERY professional.
Actually I've bought rugs and computers from websites not much more complex than HN. Both sets of transactions went smoothly and quickly with no issues. I wish I could say the same for some very flashy websites I've used. On some I can't even get a delivery estimate until I've submitted credit card etc.
Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone
#314Sites 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…
> The author's proposed solution is for sites to use DPI instead, but this would thwart the preferences of users who use scaling because they want the whole site to look bigger. Agree. I sometimes browse the web on my TV - and I sit about 2 metres (or 6 feet) away from it. So the TV screen occupies a similar portion of my field of view that a phone would, and I usually browse at 150-200% zoom. DPI might help you figu…
Yes, field of view is what really matters, but scaling at the OS level (like TFA's author is doing) is a good way to correct for unusual fields of view. Got a higher-than-typical DPI and/or ridiculously far away screen and/or vision impairments? Scale the OS up. Got a screen with lower-than-typical DPI and/or touching your nose and/or amazing vision? Scale the OS down. You need the entire OS scaled, not just web pages.
"CSS pixels" are kind of a roundabout way to conceptualize it, but they solve the problem of proper readability once the OS scale is correct for the user. The combination acts as a proxy for field of view.
Then there's detection of course/fine pointing devices, as already discussed, to further augment the layout for proper target area.
I don't believe anything else will matter if the above is accounted for.
Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone
#315Sites 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…
> The author's proposed solution is for sites to use DPI instead, but this would thwart the preferences of users who use scaling because they want the whole site to look bigger.
The author's problem is not things becoming bigger. Larger was the goal after all of settings that scaling. The author's problem is things optimize for mobile interaction. Like making thing touch controlled, Or making buttons disproportionately large to make easy to click with thumb.
Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You're not disagreeing with the argument or conclusion of that post, though: it would be bad for sites to look at dpi and determine the native screen width without factoring in zoom level, because doing so would make text unreadable for you.
Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe true webdesigners are in decline. You have lots of people who do this as a side gig after reading a few tutorials. In decline from when? Picking it up after reading a few tutorials has always been a common way to get into web work, and if anything I feel like it's been getting more professionalized over the last twenty years.
Just the general gist over the last few years. I am not saying there are no really skilled professionals, I am just seeing a lot of lower par work from jobs I take over. Plus just by surfing the web and noting the quality.
I’ve been doing web development since 2007, and I’m struggling to think of an era that had more professionals doing front end than we have now. I’m not sure my experience agrees with you
Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe true webdesigners are in decline. You have lots of people who do this as a side gig after reading a few tutorials. In decline from when? Picking it up after reading a few tutorials has always been a common way to get into web work, and if anything I feel like it's been getting more professionalized over the last twenty years.
Just the general gist over the last few years. I am not saying there are no really skilled professionals, I am just seeing a lot of lower par work from jobs I take over. Plus just by surfing the web and noting the quality.
You’re getting better. :)
Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone
#319"I have a very unique setup that isn't catered to by every website on the internet and I have no real solution for this."
Re: Just because I have a vertical screen doesn’t mean I’m on a phone
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I have no such intention, I was merely rephrasing what they said: > But I find the fonts slightly too small at that resolution – given how far I sit from the screen.
Without accusing you of any -isms, OP merely said that, given how far they sit from the screen, the font is too small.
You conflated that with sitting too far away. There are a lot of reasons why that might not be correct, including presbyopia. I think it's unlikely OP is sitting at that distance by accident, since it's pretty easy to move a monitor closer, so one of those reasons is more likely to apply than is your assumption.