131–140 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well... Yeah. What's your point? That Apple knows better about the content and performance characteristics of my app than me?
No, the user gets to decide, when looking at your website, whether they want to zoom it or not. Based on whether or not they can comfortably read it. (Yes, there's accessibility zoom, but I didn't know about that until this thread)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Responsive is good, however dictatorial coding isn't. No reason responsive ought not be user friendly as well. The problem is that many devs seem to thing that they know best for their users. However a larger number don't actually understand that their vision of how a web page should operate isn't necessarily how a web page should operate. Too many cooks trying to be chefs. I admit that I don't have an expert grasp o…
> Responsive is good I'll disagree. Responsive is a cop-out -- reminds me of the "mobile" versions of websites. Give me the full version, and stop messing with the layout and experience between the web and the phone.
- Apple, at iPhone release
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't disagree more. There should always be a way to make the content I'm looking at bigger in order to see it more clearly, especially for users with poor eyesight. "responsive design" does not magically eliminate this need, and I agree with the posters saying that disabling of user-scrolling should never have even been allowed in the first place. And that's not even touching on the fact that most "responsive"…
You can't zoom in normal apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Responsive is good I'll disagree. Responsive is a cop-out -- reminds me of the "mobile" versions of websites. Give me the full version, and stop messing with the layout and experience between the web and the phone.
~"It's not the mobile internet, it's just the internet" - Apple, at iPhone release
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reader mode FTFW. Fuck fixed headers / footers. Fuck social. And fuck fixed social header/footer bars specifically.
I hate fixed bars on desktop as well - I still scroll with my keyboard and it chops content off willy nilly.
If you're naming your primary elements, or ascribing them values of "share" or "social" (wildcard search), they're likely to get nuked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reader mode FTFW. Fuck fixed headers / footers. Fuck social. And fuck fixed social header/footer bars specifically.
Best answer so far. Print mode is also not bad.
I'll sooner copy/paste text into a vim buffer.
As I see it, the 350ms delay was added to support zooming via double-tap. What I don't understand is why double-tap zooming is necessary when we have pinch-to-zoom? Can't zoom via double-tap be sacrificed for instant clicks and everyone is happy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't downvote you, but I also don't agree with your assumptions. First, I don't think that desktop sites are such a big problem on mobile (though some are, admittedly, unusable). At least with a desktop site I can zoom and figure out a way to get to the content I want (in fact iOS does, or used to, to let you double-tap on the content and it would intelligently zoom to fit). Most mobile sites with which I interac…
This has been my experience too. I surf in landscape mode on an iPhone 5, and far too often there's a fat social-sharing-bar at the bottom, and a fancy site-header-bar at the top, leaving about 1cm of readable and scrollable content. Wtf are they smoking? A tip: Hold down your finger on the reload circle-arrow to load the desktop version of the page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the full versions of the sites are often horrible for mobile. It is as simple as optimisation for vertical vs horizontal layout. Also, responsive design does not mean disabling zoom at all.
> But the full versions of the sites are often horrible for mobile. I've never found that to be the case. Or if I did, it was far less often than being annoyed with the lacking, scaled down, "horizontally enhanced" mobile layout.
In portrait mode the text is way too small to read and zooming in results in text that goes over the edge. In horizontal mode the experience is a bit better but one still needs good eyes to read the comments. Luckily there are enough applications that mitigate the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the full versions of the sites are often horrible for mobile. I've never found that to be the case. Or if I did, it was far less often than being annoyed with the lacking, scaled down, "horizontally enhanced" mobile layout.
As an example of a site that is not good at all on mobile I would cite this very one. In portrait mode the text is way too small to read and zooming in results in text that goes over the edge. In horizontal mode the experience is a bit better but one still needs good eyes to read the comments. Luckily there are enough applications that mitigate the problem.
Small font size makes it faster to scroll past long threads.