5 ms·

Have you actually tried the site on a mobile device? It's impossible to read the text and navigation is hell. Wouldn't classify that as "mobile friendly".

dchest 7y ago
I just tried, it works well (Chrome/Android on a 5.5"-something screen).
vesinisa 7y ago
It's not so bad if your mobile browser supports pinch to zoom.
- rchaud 7y ago
  Most mobile browsers support it out of the box. If the site designer set "user-scalable=no" in the meta viewport property, than that will prevent zooming. It's an accessibility issue and should be avoided.
  - mcintyre1994 7y ago
    iOS has ignored that meta tag for a while now.
dahart 7y ago
Just tried on iPad, the site works great. Did you mean ‘phone’ and not ‘mobile device’?
- jaypeg25 7y ago
  ohhh so pedantic. Love it.
  - dahart 7y ago
    I am sorry, you’re totally right, is it pretty unreasonably nit picky to differentiate between 10 inch screens and 3 inch screens when it comes to web UX. Smart phones do count as all mobile devices and the only thing that matters when determining if a site is mobile friendly. And of course it’s usually a good idea to broaden the argument categorically to something larger than your personal experience to make the stronger point that most people would agree with you and the other person is obviously up in the night.
- joegahona 7y ago
  Would you also consider a laptop to be a "device" that is "mobile"?
  - dahart 7y ago
    You say that as if it’s weird to call an iPad a mobile device. Would you say that a tablet is not a mobile device? What do you define as mobile device, and what devices would you use to determine if a web site is “mobile friendly”? The common definition of mobile device is phone or tablet. The common definition of laptop is computer. These despite the fact that phones and tablets are computers and despite the fact that laptops and even desktops can be moved. It’s pretty easy to find lots of examples of the common definitions. Here’s a good one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_device
    - lccarrasco 7y ago
      Does that definition matter if tablets are probably less than 1% of all mobile devices?
      - dahart 7y ago
        Why Google something for two seconds when you can just speculate wildly? Tablets are almost 10% of mobile sales via my first search hit https://www.zdnet.com/article/smartphone-market-a-mess-but-annual-tablet-sales-are-also-down/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/smartphone-market-a-mess-but-a... The question of whether definitions matter when one sub-category or subset is a minority or majority... I’m not sure how to answer that. Why would a definition stop mattering just because something different is a small subset? I must assume that a categorical term includes everything in the category. If you don’t mean everything in the category, then don’t use the term that refers to the category. If you mean phone, then say phone. ?? Right? I’m confused why you would argue anything else.
      - reaperducer 7y ago
        Depends on your audience. One of my healthcare web sites is almost 60% iPad, because doctors love them.
- rchaud 7y ago
  A landscape iPad has the same 4:3 aspect ratio as most PC monitors during that time (800px x 600px or 1024px x 768px)
Mirioron 7y ago
What do you mean? The text isn't much smaller than on HN on my 5.5" phone. It's entirely readable.
- frosted-flakes 7y ago
  HN is hardly a good example. It's terrible on mobile.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    I find HN to be one of the best mobile websites. It's fast and text isn't massively oversized. You can actually fit information on screen. Many mobile websites I've seen are horrible to use, because they have very poor information density and the sites seem to be designed for 4" or smaller screens.
    - matsemann 7y ago
      I tried to upvote you about HNs great mobile design, but the buttons are so small I accidentally downvoted ;)
      - SilasX 7y ago
        Then zoom in, which most "mobile optimized" sites prohibit. My further comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22328505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22328505
Y-Bopinator 7y ago
Works fine for me. Might be time to see the doctor and get your eyes checked.
SilasX 7y ago
What do you mean? It has reasonable column width so you can zoom in and out as necessary, often with a double tap. That is, it leaves it up to the client to adjust as necessary -- in contrast with the typical mobile site, which: 1) Forces a particular size/resolution, locking out zoom capabilities 2) Has a floating header with a constant size relative to your device screen, blotting out the same real estate no matter how much you zoom. And, of course, using the same header pixel height for portrait vs landscape, making the latter practically unusable. Yes, this site is better than 99% of mobile sites out there. Edit: Some further comments: It's generally better to have a site that obeys the standards and thus plays nice with any client, than one that locks you into the hip designer's meth-addled decision. This site in particular works well with my extensions like VimFX for clicking links from the keyboard.
- duckmysick 7y ago
  > so you can zoom in and out as necessary That's the thing - it shouldn't be necessary. I don't do that on desktop browsers; why should mobile devices be any different? If the site is not legible, I set the desired zoom once and I'm done. There's no need to go back and forth. Now, I can't do that if the elements stay mismatched on mobile. I have to zoom in and then back when I want to interact with small elements - each time. It gets old when I have to click tiny links or upvote arrows more than a few times. It's jarring and not a good user experience. > And, of course, using the same header pixel height for portrait vs landscape, making the latter practically unusable. The floating header issue notwithstanding (I don't like them either), this is exactly why the web designers should tailor their elements to different viewports. > It's generally better to have a site that obeys the standards Yes, and that also includes accessibility guidelines. Compatibility with keyboard navigation is one of them, but so is the size and spacing of the controls, links, and buttons.
  - SilasX 7y ago
    True. Zooming in shouldn’t be necessary. And mobile sites shouldn’t use floating headers or footers. And they shouldn’t hijack interface modes. And they should pick sizes that don’t feel like a straitjacket or make it seem like you’re peering at it through blinds. And they should be accessible and standards compliant. But I wasn’t comparing to the three or four mobile-optimized sites that satisfy all that. I was referring to the more typical millions that don’t. And yes, given how bad they are, I’d much rather have suboptimal design that I can recover from with a pinch or a double tap than one I can’t. What would you cite as an example of a mobile site that is more usable than this one?

dchest 7y ago

I just tried, it works well (Chrome/Android on a 5.5"-something screen).

vesinisa 7y ago

It's not so bad if your mobile browser supports pinch to zoom.

rchaud 7y ago
Most mobile browsers support it out of the box. If the site designer set "user-scalable=no" in the meta viewport property, than that will prevent zooming. It's an accessibility issue and should be avoided.
- mcintyre1994 7y ago
  iOS has ignored that meta tag for a while now.

dahart 7y ago

Just tried on iPad, the site works great. Did you mean ‘phone’ and not ‘mobile device’?

jaypeg25 7y ago
ohhh so pedantic. Love it.
- dahart 7y ago
  I am sorry, you’re totally right, is it pretty unreasonably nit picky to differentiate between 10 inch screens and 3 inch screens when it comes to web UX. Smart phones do count as all mobile devices and the only thing that matters when determining if a site is mobile friendly. And of course it’s usually a good idea to broaden the argument categorically to something larger than your personal experience to make the stronger point that most people would agree with you and the other person is obviously up in the night.
joegahona 7y ago
Would you also consider a laptop to be a "device" that is "mobile"?
- dahart 7y ago
  You say that as if it’s weird to call an iPad a mobile device. Would you say that a tablet is not a mobile device? What do you define as mobile device, and what devices would you use to determine if a web site is “mobile friendly”? The common definition of mobile device is phone or tablet. The common definition of laptop is computer. These despite the fact that phones and tablets are computers and despite the fact that laptops and even desktops can be moved. It’s pretty easy to find lots of examples of the common definitions. Here’s a good one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_device
  - lccarrasco 7y ago
    Does that definition matter if tablets are probably less than 1% of all mobile devices?
    - dahart 7y ago
      Why Google something for two seconds when you can just speculate wildly? Tablets are almost 10% of mobile sales via my first search hit https://www.zdnet.com/article/smartphone-market-a-mess-but-annual-tablet-sales-are-also-down/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/smartphone-market-a-mess-but-a... The question of whether definitions matter when one sub-category or subset is a minority or majority... I’m not sure how to answer that. Why would a definition stop mattering just because something different is a small subset? I must assume that a categorical term includes everything in the category. If you don’t mean everything in the category, then don’t use the term that refers to the category. If you mean phone, then say phone. ?? Right? I’m confused why you would argue anything else.
    - reaperducer 7y ago
      Depends on your audience. One of my healthcare web sites is almost 60% iPad, because doctors love them.
rchaud 7y ago
A landscape iPad has the same 4:3 aspect ratio as most PC monitors during that time (800px x 600px or 1024px x 768px)

Mirioron 7y ago

What do you mean? The text isn't much smaller than on HN on my 5.5" phone. It's entirely readable.

frosted-flakes 7y ago
HN is hardly a good example. It's terrible on mobile.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  I find HN to be one of the best mobile websites. It's fast and text isn't massively oversized. You can actually fit information on screen. Many mobile websites I've seen are horrible to use, because they have very poor information density and the sites seem to be designed for 4" or smaller screens.
  - matsemann 7y ago
    I tried to upvote you about HNs great mobile design, but the buttons are so small I accidentally downvoted ;)
    - SilasX 7y ago
      Then zoom in, which most "mobile optimized" sites prohibit. My further comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22328505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22328505

Y-Bopinator 7y ago

Works fine for me. Might be time to see the doctor and get your eyes checked.

SilasX 7y ago

What do you mean? It has reasonable column width so you can zoom in and out as necessary, often with a double tap. That is, it leaves it up to the client to adjust as necessary -- in contrast with the typical mobile site, which: 1) Forces a particular size/resolution, locking out zoom capabilities 2) Has a floating header with a constant size relative to your device screen, blotting out the same real estate no matter how much you zoom. And, of course, using the same header pixel height for portrait vs landscape, making the latter practically unusable. Yes, this site is better than 99% of mobile sites out there. Edit: Some further comments: It's generally better to have a site that obeys the standards and thus plays nice with any client, than one that locks you into the hip designer's meth-addled decision. This site in particular works well with my extensions like VimFX for clicking links from the keyboard.

duckmysick 7y ago
> so you can zoom in and out as necessary That's the thing - it shouldn't be necessary. I don't do that on desktop browsers; why should mobile devices be any different? If the site is not legible, I set the desired zoom once and I'm done. There's no need to go back and forth. Now, I can't do that if the elements stay mismatched on mobile. I have to zoom in and then back when I want to interact with small elements - each time. It gets old when I have to click tiny links or upvote arrows more than a few times. It's jarring and not a good user experience. > And, of course, using the same header pixel height for portrait vs landscape, making the latter practically unusable. The floating header issue notwithstanding (I don't like them either), this is exactly why the web designers should tailor their elements to different viewports. > It's generally better to have a site that obeys the standards Yes, and that also includes accessibility guidelines. Compatibility with keyboard navigation is one of them, but so is the size and spacing of the controls, links, and buttons.
- SilasX 7y ago
  True. Zooming in shouldn’t be necessary. And mobile sites shouldn’t use floating headers or footers. And they shouldn’t hijack interface modes. And they should pick sizes that don’t feel like a straitjacket or make it seem like you’re peering at it through blinds. And they should be accessible and standards compliant. But I wasn’t comparing to the three or four mobile-optimized sites that satisfy all that. I was referring to the more typical millions that don’t. And yes, given how bad they are, I’d much rather have suboptimal design that I can recover from with a pinch or a double tap than one I can’t. What would you cite as an example of a mobile site that is more usable than this one?