And of course realistically he is probably seeing sites with breakpoints built entirely on min-width/max-width, which gives the size of the browser canvas. The

And of course realistically he is probably seeing sites with breakpoints built entirely on min-width/max-width, which gives the size of the browser canvas. The Guardian, for instance, has a lot of "@media (max-width: 71.24em)" in its CSS. Screen height? Zero fucks given. I turned my desktop monitor to portrait and I can change between desktop and phone versions by shrinking my desktop window and/or changing the font size. Which feels like a perfectly sensible way to tackle the problem if you are coming from a place where you are thinking in typography. eat.co.uk? Tons of "@media print, screen and (max-width: 768px)". Screen height? What's that? popsci.com? A lot of "@media screen and (max-width: XXXpx)", where XXX varies a lot - every number is different, the lowest is 325px and the highest is 1720, someone's been thinking about a lot of edge cases in that layout. ---- The fundamental problem of "I am getting the mobile site on my desktop" still applies, but his theories as to why are wrong. Really I feel like he is sitting in the middle of a very small edge case. Not many people use portrait screens on their desktop. And of those people, how many are bumping the effective resolution by changing the scaling? Finding a solution that can work properly for him, and not fuck things up for people with failing vision (and maybe even run afoul of accessibility laws by doing that) is gonna be a lot of work for very little return, and he should just bump his font size down a little and live with that, or do some CSS injection on every single offending site if he has a lot of time to blow on this.