5 ms·

It's not zooming (ctrl +), it's when you literally set the font size in the browser. This is typically done for people with vision issues, or assistive technolo

It's not zooming (ctrl +), it's when you literally set the font size in the browser. This is typically done for people with vision issues, or assistive technology

chrisweekly 4y ago
Something like 10% [EDIT: 3%? point remains] of people change their browser's default font size - a larger userbase than that of many browsers deemed worthy of support.
- IshKebab 4y ago
  3% according to the first result I found, which sounds way more plausible. https://css-tricks.com/users-do-change-font-size https://css-tricks.com/users-do-change-font-size I couldn't find stats on zoom but I'd guess far far more people use zoom than font size which makes sense because it works reliably and doesn't break site layouts.
- croes 4y ago
  Where is the disadvantage in supporting these 10% by using rem instead of px?
  - chrisweekly 4y ago
    Sorry I wasn't clearer! Use of rem is preferable to px because it supports this cohort of users who change their default font size. Using px ignores their preferences. There are other benefits to adopting a typographic scale as the basis for truly responsive design. See https://every-layout.dev https://every-layout.dev for a masterclass in exposition of this idea.
    - lelandfe 4y ago
      > There are other benefits to adopting a typographic scale as the basis for truly responsive design Can you give some examples? I was of the belief that there weren't other benefits. Nb I also dislike sources that use block and inline box model properties. It is a fictitious need: when will you ever add traditional Asian writing to your site?
  - martyfmelb 4y ago
    Increased UI testing surface, tracing responsibility when things go wrong, and inserting a new decision for every single metric any FE developer ever writes. - The more obscure combinations of viewing options you support, the more likely you'll miss some weird combination in your VRT or manual testing until an actual user in production finds it for you. - But maybe your manual tester or VRT has excellent coverage. Still, it got more expensive. Supporting just one more text zoom level doubles your VRT expense. Your team has finite QA resources and VRT compute. Scope/quality/cost/time of something, somewhere, had to be dropped. Generally, is it worth it? - If you are supporting REM and your designers don't distinguish between REM and PX, you have created new states that designers haven't planned for. You introduced a new cross-cutting source of design bugs, but if your designers didn't ask for this feature, they can't stem the flow of bugs! - If you are supporting REM without coding guidelines to recommend what should be REM vs. what should be PX -- sans a hero dev who sees the impending mess and writes those docs for you -- you will get a chaotic and inconsistent mix of REMs and PX in your code.
- lelandfe 4y ago
  It has been substantially below 2% in the tests I’ve done for various medium-sized business sites. We had to have serious discussions about the work involved to convert values between pixels and rems relative to the amount of people it serves. (Especially when browser-based scale zooms are totally sufficient)
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
Honest question: why do people increase the font size instead of just changing the default zoom level? I feel that the latter creates a more consistent experience.
- croes 4y ago
  Maybe because they just want bigger text and not a bigger site.
  - csande17 4y ago
    Unfortunately, if web developers follow the advice from the article to use rem units everywhere, they'll get a bigger site.
    - ehutch79 4y ago
      You are correct! REM for text, PX for layout But if you're going to choose one, use rem with the body text-size hack.
- nailer 4y ago
  Because old web browsers didn't let people zoom properly. I think IE7 was one of the first.
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    Yeah, and that maybe makes sense in 2012, but not in 2022.
- lmm 4y ago
  Maybe I want to keep seeing images at 1:1. Maybe the font sizes are bad. I remember the days when the user was supposed to be in control of how websites were styled.
- ehutch79 4y ago
  Depending on your vision, you might be able to see a button is a button, but the font is just too small by a few pts. You don't need borders or whatever zoomed, just the font size bumped a bit.

It's not zooming (ctrl +), it's when you literally set the font size in the browser. This is typically done for people with vision issues, or assistive technology

chrisweekly 4y ago

Something like 10% [EDIT: 3%? point remains] of people change their browser's default font size - a larger userbase than that of many browsers deemed worthy of support.

IshKebab 4y ago
3% according to the first result I found, which sounds way more plausible. https://css-tricks.com/users-do-change-font-size https://css-tricks.com/users-do-change-font-size I couldn't find stats on zoom but I'd guess far far more people use zoom than font size which makes sense because it works reliably and doesn't break site layouts.
croes 4y ago
Where is the disadvantage in supporting these 10% by using rem instead of px?
- chrisweekly 4y ago
  Sorry I wasn't clearer! Use of rem is preferable to px because it supports this cohort of users who change their default font size. Using px ignores their preferences. There are other benefits to adopting a typographic scale as the basis for truly responsive design. See https://every-layout.dev https://every-layout.dev for a masterclass in exposition of this idea.
  - lelandfe 4y ago
    > There are other benefits to adopting a typographic scale as the basis for truly responsive design Can you give some examples? I was of the belief that there weren't other benefits. Nb I also dislike sources that use block and inline box model properties. It is a fictitious need: when will you ever add traditional Asian writing to your site?
- martyfmelb 4y ago
  Increased UI testing surface, tracing responsibility when things go wrong, and inserting a new decision for every single metric any FE developer ever writes. - The more obscure combinations of viewing options you support, the more likely you'll miss some weird combination in your VRT or manual testing until an actual user in production finds it for you. - But maybe your manual tester or VRT has excellent coverage. Still, it got more expensive. Supporting just one more text zoom level doubles your VRT expense. Your team has finite QA resources and VRT compute. Scope/quality/cost/time of something, somewhere, had to be dropped. Generally, is it worth it? - If you are supporting REM and your designers don't distinguish between REM and PX, you have created new states that designers haven't planned for. You introduced a new cross-cutting source of design bugs, but if your designers didn't ask for this feature, they can't stem the flow of bugs! - If you are supporting REM without coding guidelines to recommend what should be REM vs. what should be PX -- sans a hero dev who sees the impending mess and writes those docs for you -- you will get a chaotic and inconsistent mix of REMs and PX in your code.
lelandfe 4y ago
It has been substantially below 2% in the tests I’ve done for various medium-sized business sites. We had to have serious discussions about the work involved to convert values between pixels and rems relative to the amount of people it serves. (Especially when browser-based scale zooms are totally sufficient)

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

Honest question: why do people increase the font size instead of just changing the default zoom level? I feel that the latter creates a more consistent experience.

croes 4y ago
Maybe because they just want bigger text and not a bigger site.
- csande17 4y ago
  Unfortunately, if web developers follow the advice from the article to use rem units everywhere, they'll get a bigger site.
  - ehutch79 4y ago
    You are correct! REM for text, PX for layout But if you're going to choose one, use rem with the body text-size hack.
nailer 4y ago
Because old web browsers didn't let people zoom properly. I think IE7 was one of the first.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  Yeah, and that maybe makes sense in 2012, but not in 2022.
lmm 4y ago
Maybe I want to keep seeing images at 1:1. Maybe the font sizes are bad. I remember the days when the user was supposed to be in control of how websites were styled.
ehutch79 4y ago
Depending on your vision, you might be able to see a button is a button, but the font is just too small by a few pts. You don't need borders or whatever zoomed, just the font size bumped a bit.