5 ms·

I agree (a) inconsistency is bad and (b) latency is bad, but double-click-to-zoom is very useful (for operating the phone with your thumb when your other hand i

I agree (a) inconsistency is bad and (b) latency is bad, but double-click-to-zoom is very useful (for operating the phone with your thumb when your other hand isn't free), and I think removing it would be bad overall. Perhaps people will be more inclined to write mobile-optimized sites that don't need to be zoomed if they can get reduced latency as a bonus.

jaffathecake 13y ago
Double-click-to-zoom is useful, but not on mobile-optimised sites, which is why we only disabled it there. Although, if you know of a mobile-optimised site it's useful on, let us know, it'll affect how the feature lands in stable.
- tjoff 13y ago
  Yes it is useful on mobile-"optimized"-sites. The fact that mobile sites somehow assume that zooming is bad is the exact reason for why they are useless and most people, that know what they are doing, are not browsing mobile sites at all but going to great lengths to get the full blown version that lets you get an overview and zoom in on the interesting parts instead of endless scrolling to find what you are looking for. I've yet to experience a mobile site I prefer to the real thing, on any of my mobile devices.
  - krzysz00 13y ago
    Disabling zoom is also not good for visually impaired users and other people who need things to be bigger sometimes.
  - girvo 13y ago
    Lol. "Most people that know what they're doing", don't pull up the desktop version, because they're pretty okay with mobile sites. But I guess I've no idea what I'm doing when browsing on my iPhone, and my analytics showing far better engagement with a mobile site vs desktop site on mobile just shows me a lot of people who don't "know what they're doing".
  - jaffathecake 13y ago
    You're talking about badly built sites here. The change to Chrome discussed in the article doesn't make the situation you describe any better or worse.
    - tjoff 13y ago
      I'm talking about mobile-optimized sites, but yes, I guess you could say that all mobile-versions are badly built. Which also makes all browsers that allow a page to disable zoom badly built.
      - jaffathecake 13y ago
        I could say all mobile-versions are badly built, but I'd be wrong. Not all mobile-optimised sites have endless scrolling. Presenting the same amount of data to mobile as you would desktop, but linearised, is bad design. Having to pan and zoom is also bad design. Conditional loading is the ideal http://adactio.com/articles/5043/ http://adactio.com/articles/5043/. I do this in a minor way on my blog http://jakearchibald.com/ http://jakearchibald.com/ - the side bar doesn't appear on mobile, as it would linearise below the main content where few would see it. Instead, it becomes a navigation item at the top of the page.
        tjoff 13y ago
        Pan and zoom can be brilliant. Just brilliant. That is to say that it usually isn't the best when paired with pages made for desktop browsers. But it is the best we've got. Your blog is very simple, and that's great, but it hardly represents the difficulties that people have to address when creating a mobile site. Also, having to press "Who" requires a new page to be loaded as compared to it being there in the first place (conditional loading is most definitely not ideal). But, why is your mobile version better than the desktop version when on a phone? Honestly? The desktop version gives me an overview, I can get a better glimpse of the topics (and you on your sidebar) and I quickly and literally dive in on the content I'm after without having to load a new page (which is expensive). And I bet that the desktop version would be just as readable and fast as your mobile version. But I can't test it out because your page does not respect the "request desktop site" option on the latest Chrome on android (4.4.2). That is really bad. Your page is so simplistic that I would assume, only being served a mobile page, that if I didn't find what I was looking for I'd wonder if it were present on the "real" site. That is reason alone not to have a mobile version at all for a simple site. Yes, that's only a consequence of the pathetic state of affairs that is mobile web pages but it is the reality. So, you agree that a mobile site with endless scrolling is bad. How have you imagined to solve that when your blog count increases? With pagination every 10 posts? That is bad enough on a workstation but traversing pages on a phone is a nightmare. Just give me the whole list in the desktop version and with a flip of a finger I can scroll through the content with breeze.

jaffathecake 13y ago

Double-click-to-zoom is useful, but not on mobile-optimised sites, which is why we only disabled it there. Although, if you know of a mobile-optimised site it's useful on, let us know, it'll affect how the feature lands in stable.

tjoff 13y ago
Yes it is useful on mobile-"optimized"-sites. The fact that mobile sites somehow assume that zooming is bad is the exact reason for why they are useless and most people, that know what they are doing, are not browsing mobile sites at all but going to great lengths to get the full blown version that lets you get an overview and zoom in on the interesting parts instead of endless scrolling to find what you are looking for. I've yet to experience a mobile site I prefer to the real thing, on any of my mobile devices.
- krzysz00 13y ago
  Disabling zoom is also not good for visually impaired users and other people who need things to be bigger sometimes.
- girvo 13y ago
  Lol. "Most people that know what they're doing", don't pull up the desktop version, because they're pretty okay with mobile sites. But I guess I've no idea what I'm doing when browsing on my iPhone, and my analytics showing far better engagement with a mobile site vs desktop site on mobile just shows me a lot of people who don't "know what they're doing".
- jaffathecake 13y ago
  You're talking about badly built sites here. The change to Chrome discussed in the article doesn't make the situation you describe any better or worse.
  - tjoff 13y ago
    I'm talking about mobile-optimized sites, but yes, I guess you could say that all mobile-versions are badly built. Which also makes all browsers that allow a page to disable zoom badly built.
    - jaffathecake 13y ago
      I could say all mobile-versions are badly built, but I'd be wrong. Not all mobile-optimised sites have endless scrolling. Presenting the same amount of data to mobile as you would desktop, but linearised, is bad design. Having to pan and zoom is also bad design. Conditional loading is the ideal http://adactio.com/articles/5043/ http://adactio.com/articles/5043/. I do this in a minor way on my blog http://jakearchibald.com/ http://jakearchibald.com/ - the side bar doesn't appear on mobile, as it would linearise below the main content where few would see it. Instead, it becomes a navigation item at the top of the page.
      - tjoff 13y ago
        Pan and zoom can be brilliant. Just brilliant. That is to say that it usually isn't the best when paired with pages made for desktop browsers. But it is the best we've got. Your blog is very simple, and that's great, but it hardly represents the difficulties that people have to address when creating a mobile site. Also, having to press "Who" requires a new page to be loaded as compared to it being there in the first place (conditional loading is most definitely not ideal). But, why is your mobile version better than the desktop version when on a phone? Honestly? The desktop version gives me an overview, I can get a better glimpse of the topics (and you on your sidebar) and I quickly and literally dive in on the content I'm after without having to load a new page (which is expensive). And I bet that the desktop version would be just as readable and fast as your mobile version. But I can't test it out because your page does not respect the "request desktop site" option on the latest Chrome on android (4.4.2). That is really bad. Your page is so simplistic that I would assume, only being served a mobile page, that if I didn't find what I was looking for I'd wonder if it were present on the "real" site. That is reason alone not to have a mobile version at all for a simple site. Yes, that's only a consequence of the pathetic state of affairs that is mobile web pages but it is the reality. So, you agree that a mobile site with endless scrolling is bad. How have you imagined to solve that when your blog count increases? With pagination every 10 posts? That is bad enough on a workstation but traversing pages on a phone is a nightmare. Just give me the whole list in the desktop version and with a flip of a finger I can scroll through the content with breeze.