3 ms·

> If I try to zoom, it is already a demonstration that your design does not work for me on my device. THIS! This is how I feel exactly! When you load up a site

by err4nt 11y ago

> If I try to zoom, it is already a demonstration that your design does not work for me on my device. THIS! This is how I feel exactly! When you load up a site I do it is as well designed as a mobile app. Surely people don't complain about the inability to zoom in their iOS settings app, or in the clocks app. Why would my site be any different?

function_seven 11y ago
> When you load up a site I do it is as well designed as a mobile app. Surely people don't complain about the inability to zoom in their iOS settings app, or in the clocks app. Why would my site be any different? They have that ability (at least on iOS. Don't know about Android, but I assume it has similar settings). It's under the Accessibility options. Why don't you allow users the ability to zoom your sites?
- err4nt 11y ago
  I do allow zoom when it's appropriate: usually when I'm either targeting desktop users and don't plan (or don't have budget) to specifically target mobile users with their own experience, or when user scaling of the viewport makes sense to the project. It's FAR better to pan and zoom around a working desktop layout than to have a broken responsive layout, so I only disable user-scaling on sites with a specifically targeted mobile experience where I can deliver a better experience by disabling user scaling than leaving it on. Here's an example where disabling user zoom vastly improves user experience: a tool I built for myself with the purpose of allowing me to test other websites responsively at different widths while using a device with a fixed-width screen. I.E. this tool lets me test websites at different browser widths while on a phone with a fixed-width. http://staticresource.com/speedtest.php http://staticresource.com/speedtest.php Now, if I were to have had user scaling enabled do you think the experience on that site would be better? Clearly not! But on the other hand, here's a chart with all of the values in hexadecimal plotted in a grid so I can understand and visualize the relationships between values in hexadecimal colour notation (like #1166aa). This page is an illustration, and though I do have some crude responsive styles to help it fit on narrower screens, I intentionally left user-scaling on to make a better user-experience, until/unless I decide to go in and give it a better mobile-specific experience: http://staticresource.com/misc/grid.html http://staticresource.com/misc/grid.html Now, if I were to have had user scaling enabled do you think the experience on that site would be better? Clearly not! There's no right or wrong answer for every. single. website. You have to look at how it will be used, who will use it, on which hardware, and what will provide the most value to them. That decision happens case-by-case and there's always a trade-off happening. I wonder if the group of people that can't manage to browse with user-scaling turned off on their modern, high-end mobile phones are the same who can't seem to load any website posted to HN that uses JavaScript because not everybody uses a browser with JS enabled…
  - Nadya 11y ago
    I can say for a fact that zooming on the grid would have been a better experience. As-is it is currently only usable if I use my phone as landscape rather than portrait as there is no space between each item. For most sites I don't bother rotating my phone - scrolling down is worse than zooming in/out. Especially when trying to read a grid or chart reliant on seeing all the information at once and not 4 rows at a time.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    I can say for a fact that zooming on the grid would have been a better experience. As-is it is currently only usable if I use my phone as landscape rather than portrait as there is no space between each item. For most sites I don't bother rotating my phone - scrolling down is worse than zooming in/out. Especially when trying to read a grid or chart reliant on seeing all the information at once and not 4 rows at a time.
  - function_seven 11y ago
    Yes, both of those sites benefit from zoomability. The first one, I just tested (by visiting "water.com" in your tool). When I tested #5 (500 x 477), the viewport disappears off the end of the right edge of my screen. I can't see the whole thing at once, no matter what I do. I have to scroll, and that's confusing because my scroll swipe will move the content inside the viewport before moving the site itself, and thus the viewport itself. If I could pinch out on it, I'd see the whole thing at once. As an aside, the Android I used to test this allowed me to turn on Force Zoom, and that allowed me to use the site better. The second site (grid.html) can appear very small. I think you intended to say it should be zoomable, as I was able to zoom in and out on that one. My point is, even when you yourself cannot conceive of a reason a user would like to zoom the site, trust me, there probably is one. In another reply, you mentioned the 300ms delay that turning on zoom control introduces. I hadn't thought of that before, and that is a good point for disabling zoom control. Maybe Apple can follow Google's lead, and give their users the option to override it. That would allow the majority of your users the faster touch-responsiveness that you're trying to give them, while still letting the rest of us have the control we'd like over our browsers.
  - vidarh 11y ago
vidarh 11y ago
> THIS! This is how I feel exactly! When you load up a site I do it is as well designed as a mobile app. You appear to have missed my entire point, which is that if I try to zoom, there is no reason to prevent me from doing so, as the fact that I have tried to zoom is proof your attempt at design to meet my needs failed, and zoom might make it better, and certainly won't make it worse, while denying me will make me annoyed or angry and potentially mean I can't use your site. I can tell you with 100% certainty that you are unable to find a font-size, for example, that will satisfy everyone, as e.g. what is comfortable for me is too small to be readable for a lot of people. Arguably, disabling zoom might even violate disabilities protections in some jurisdictions. E.g. in the UK you are required to take reasonable steps to make your site available to people with disabilities. Disabling zoom does the opposite, by making it harder to access your site for weak sighted people. > Surely people don't complain about the inability to zoom in their iOS settings app, or in the clocks app. Why would my site be any different? Why do you think people won't complain if they can't zoom? The first screen magnifying application I saw was ca. 1986. And that was on a home computer where font sizes etc. could be freely adjusted up to very large sizes. People still wanted the ability to zoom to make their usage easier. I don't know about iOS, but on Android you can turn on "magnification gestures" and zoom any app everywhere by triple-tapping the screen. At least in my version. But for e.g. the browser, assuming you've done your job properly, then zooming in a way that allows re-layout would save a lot of weak-sighted people a lot of panning that they are forced to do if they use the built in magnification since the latter doesn't have any knowledge of the page structure.

by err4nt 11y ago

function_seven 11y ago

> When you load up a site I do it is as well designed as a mobile app. Surely people don't complain about the inability to zoom in their iOS settings app, or in the clocks app. Why would my site be any different? They have that ability (at least on iOS. Don't know about Android, but I assume it has similar settings). It's under the Accessibility options. Why don't you allow users the ability to zoom your sites?

err4nt 11y ago
I do allow zoom when it's appropriate: usually when I'm either targeting desktop users and don't plan (or don't have budget) to specifically target mobile users with their own experience, or when user scaling of the viewport makes sense to the project. It's FAR better to pan and zoom around a working desktop layout than to have a broken responsive layout, so I only disable user-scaling on sites with a specifically targeted mobile experience where I can deliver a better experience by disabling user scaling than leaving it on. Here's an example where disabling user zoom vastly improves user experience: a tool I built for myself with the purpose of allowing me to test other websites responsively at different widths while using a device with a fixed-width screen. I.E. this tool lets me test websites at different browser widths while on a phone with a fixed-width. http://staticresource.com/speedtest.php http://staticresource.com/speedtest.php Now, if I were to have had user scaling enabled do you think the experience on that site would be better? Clearly not! But on the other hand, here's a chart with all of the values in hexadecimal plotted in a grid so I can understand and visualize the relationships between values in hexadecimal colour notation (like #1166aa). This page is an illustration, and though I do have some crude responsive styles to help it fit on narrower screens, I intentionally left user-scaling on to make a better user-experience, until/unless I decide to go in and give it a better mobile-specific experience: http://staticresource.com/misc/grid.html http://staticresource.com/misc/grid.html Now, if I were to have had user scaling enabled do you think the experience on that site would be better? Clearly not! There's no right or wrong answer for every. single. website. You have to look at how it will be used, who will use it, on which hardware, and what will provide the most value to them. That decision happens case-by-case and there's always a trade-off happening. I wonder if the group of people that can't manage to browse with user-scaling turned off on their modern, high-end mobile phones are the same who can't seem to load any website posted to HN that uses JavaScript because not everybody uses a browser with JS enabled…
- Nadya 11y ago
  I can say for a fact that zooming on the grid would have been a better experience. As-is it is currently only usable if I use my phone as landscape rather than portrait as there is no space between each item. For most sites I don't bother rotating my phone - scrolling down is worse than zooming in/out. Especially when trying to read a grid or chart reliant on seeing all the information at once and not 4 rows at a time.
- Nadya 11y ago
  I can say for a fact that zooming on the grid would have been a better experience. As-is it is currently only usable if I use my phone as landscape rather than portrait as there is no space between each item. For most sites I don't bother rotating my phone - scrolling down is worse than zooming in/out. Especially when trying to read a grid or chart reliant on seeing all the information at once and not 4 rows at a time.
- function_seven 11y ago
  Yes, both of those sites benefit from zoomability. The first one, I just tested (by visiting "water.com" in your tool). When I tested #5 (500 x 477), the viewport disappears off the end of the right edge of my screen. I can't see the whole thing at once, no matter what I do. I have to scroll, and that's confusing because my scroll swipe will move the content inside the viewport before moving the site itself, and thus the viewport itself. If I could pinch out on it, I'd see the whole thing at once. As an aside, the Android I used to test this allowed me to turn on Force Zoom, and that allowed me to use the site better. The second site (grid.html) can appear very small. I think you intended to say it should be zoomable, as I was able to zoom in and out on that one. My point is, even when you yourself cannot conceive of a reason a user would like to zoom the site, trust me, there probably is one. In another reply, you mentioned the 300ms delay that turning on zoom control introduces. I hadn't thought of that before, and that is a good point for disabling zoom control. Maybe Apple can follow Google's lead, and give their users the option to override it. That would allow the majority of your users the faster touch-responsiveness that you're trying to give them, while still letting the rest of us have the control we'd like over our browsers.
- vidarh 11y ago

vidarh 11y ago

> THIS! This is how I feel exactly! When you load up a site I do it is as well designed as a mobile app. You appear to have missed my entire point, which is that if I try to zoom, there is no reason to prevent me from doing so, as the fact that I have tried to zoom is proof your attempt at design to meet my needs failed, and zoom might make it better, and certainly won't make it worse, while denying me will make me annoyed or angry and potentially mean I can't use your site. I can tell you with 100% certainty that you are unable to find a font-size, for example, that will satisfy everyone, as e.g. what is comfortable for me is too small to be readable for a lot of people. Arguably, disabling zoom might even violate disabilities protections in some jurisdictions. E.g. in the UK you are required to take reasonable steps to make your site available to people with disabilities. Disabling zoom does the opposite, by making it harder to access your site for weak sighted people. > Surely people don't complain about the inability to zoom in their iOS settings app, or in the clocks app. Why would my site be any different? Why do you think people won't complain if they can't zoom? The first screen magnifying application I saw was ca. 1986. And that was on a home computer where font sizes etc. could be freely adjusted up to very large sizes. People still wanted the ability to zoom to make their usage easier. I don't know about iOS, but on Android you can turn on "magnification gestures" and zoom any app everywhere by triple-tapping the screen. At least in my version. But for e.g. the browser, assuming you've done your job properly, then zooming in a way that allows re-layout would save a lot of weak-sighted people a lot of panning that they are forced to do if they use the built in magnification since the latter doesn't have any knowledge of the page structure.