4 ms·

You don't understand why someone would want to create something the way they want to, really? How much choice do you have in the typesetting of any book you've

You don't understand why someone would want to create something the way they want to, really? How much choice do you have in the typesetting of any book you've ever bought? You could still use a magnifying glass on your monitor, as some Russian General was photographed doing recently... . . Obviously I think the choice to disable zoom, etc, is daft, but ultimately that is the creator's right to call, advisedly or otherwise.

Ansil849 4y ago
It is the creator's right to dictate the original presentation, but it is not the creator's right to dictate a user's behavior. Just like it is a filmmaker's right to set the default framerate and playback speed for a film, but you can rewind or fastforward, or play the film at X speed if you so wish in your media player. Disabling or otherwise inhibiting user behavior is not a creator's right.
- detritus 4y ago
  Well, I don't believe it's not their right, but I am otherwise in agreement with you - it's daft to block such functionality. Ultimately, that's the creator's mistake to make and it's incumbent upon the end-user to read the content as they can, if they must. I'm not sure why people believe they have a right to dictate how someone else's content is created. I guess I'm more talking about individuals here, not organisations, but I think the problem lies more in individual's websites.
  - Ansil849 4y ago
    > I'm not sure why people believe they have a right to dictate how someone else's content is created. I do not believe anyone here is at all believing that they have a right to dictate how someone else's content is created. The argument is about modification, not creation. People should absolutely have the ability to modify their local version of the content to make it readable to them.
ryandrake 4y ago
The choice to allow zoom, or scrolling, or window resizing, or even fonts and colors... basically anything that affects my web browsing experience, should belong to me as the user, not some web site developer 1,000 miles away from me. Browsers have taken way too much control from the user (or hidden it in Settings menus) and handed the controls over to web designers. Browsers have a setting to take back this zoom control, but really it shouldn't be a setting--it should be the default. The web developer should not have the ability to disable a feature of my browser any more than he should be able to reboot my machine.
Mordisquitos 4y ago
I don't understand this argument. Leaving aside the fact that the examples provided in the link are hardly works of art, the "creator" has already created something the way they wanted to, as has every other website designer. And just like there would be no good reason for an editor to stop me from using a magnifying glass on a book that I bought, nor from writing notes in the pages or highlight parts of the text (advisedly or not), neither does anything justify disabling zoom. For whatever reason, my Firefox was already ignoring these artificial restrictions intended by the creators, and I was able to zoom as normal. Does that affect the creators of these websites in any way whatsoever?

Ansil849 4y ago

It is the creator's right to dictate the original presentation, but it is not the creator's right to dictate a user's behavior. Just like it is a filmmaker's right to set the default framerate and playback speed for a film, but you can rewind or fastforward, or play the film at X speed if you so wish in your media player. Disabling or otherwise inhibiting user behavior is not a creator's right.

detritus 4y ago
Well, I don't believe it's not their right, but I am otherwise in agreement with you - it's daft to block such functionality. Ultimately, that's the creator's mistake to make and it's incumbent upon the end-user to read the content as they can, if they must. I'm not sure why people believe they have a right to dictate how someone else's content is created. I guess I'm more talking about individuals here, not organisations, but I think the problem lies more in individual's websites.
- Ansil849 4y ago
  > I'm not sure why people believe they have a right to dictate how someone else's content is created. I do not believe anyone here is at all believing that they have a right to dictate how someone else's content is created. The argument is about modification, not creation. People should absolutely have the ability to modify their local version of the content to make it readable to them.

ryandrake 4y ago

The choice to allow zoom, or scrolling, or window resizing, or even fonts and colors... basically anything that affects my web browsing experience, should belong to me as the user, not some web site developer 1,000 miles away from me. Browsers have taken way too much control from the user (or hidden it in Settings menus) and handed the controls over to web designers. Browsers have a setting to take back this zoom control, but really it shouldn't be a setting--it should be the default. The web developer should not have the ability to disable a feature of my browser any more than he should be able to reboot my machine.

Mordisquitos 4y ago

I don't understand this argument. Leaving aside the fact that the examples provided in the link are hardly works of art, the "creator" has already created something the way they wanted to, as has every other website designer. And just like there would be no good reason for an editor to stop me from using a magnifying glass on a book that I bought, nor from writing notes in the pages or highlight parts of the text (advisedly or not), neither does anything justify disabling zoom. For whatever reason, my Firefox was already ignoring these artificial restrictions intended by the creators, and I was able to zoom as normal. Does that affect the creators of these websites in any way whatsoever?