[HN Gopher] The ideal viewport doesn't exist ___________________________________________________________________ The ideal viewport doesn't exist Author : Kye Score : 223 points Date : 2023-08-21 11:49 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (viewports.fyi) (TXT) w3m dump (viewports.fyi) | Solvency wrote: | Many parts of this article are unviewable on mobile. Irony? | esdott wrote: | For those who think that you can simply build something "fluid" | or "flexible," it's a lot harder than it seems. A lot of the | industry jargon comes from print and the printing process; | margins, padding, kerning, spacing, etc. There is no such thing | as a fluid layout on a printing press (as far as I know :-). So | we are stuck with a language to describe design based on a | different era. Additionally, in the design phase you HAVE to | select a layout/viewport for proofs and examples. Which in turn | the client will expect to look exactly right on every surface. | There is obviously room for client education and pushback but | fluid designs seem like an afterthought in html/css where we are | adding new features on top of html/css that are best used in a | fixed width based system. | eternityforest wrote: | If you learn non fluid design first it seems hard. In absolute | terms, it's really just a matter of using flexbox and percents, | and being willing to just scrap your design idea and do | something else if it doesn't map nicely to something fluid. | | Client education is a challenge and all, they often have ideas | in mind that are very specific (For some reason clients | invariably like the simplest thing that's the least general and | most direct of a translation from a basic analog system...). | But on the technical side... once you stop making designs that | rely on being able to control exactly where everything goes it | gets a lot easier. | beeslol wrote: | > If you're on a desktop device reading this, how many windows | are filling the entire screen? How much screen space does the | browser you're reading from take up? | | > It's safest to presume that users on desktop or laptop devices | are not filling their entire screen with a browser. | | Is this true? If you're reading this casually (and you are | reading this casually) is your browser not at full size? I almost | exclusively use my desktop and laptop with windows maximized | unless I'm doing some work which requires me to split up my | screen (for example writing while looking at docs or program | output). Am I the outlier here? | aendruk wrote: | I almost exclusively use my laptop split-screen unless I'm | doing some work that requires maximization. | | Over the last few years increasingly many websites when | allocated half the laptop screen have needlessly contorted into | less functional layouts appropriate for a phone, but stretched | huge. | pdabbadabba wrote: | For me, it varies by OS. I'm currently reading this on a Mac, | and the window is not filling my entire screen. If I were using | my Windows PC, however, I would be much more likely to have the | window maximized. I find that Windows makes is easier to track | all the windows I have open even when one is maximized. | kosasbest wrote: | Responsive sites have to be like elastic 'jelly' and accommodate | every view-port resolution. The only exception being non-mobile- | friendly web apps, in which case some sort of manifest should be | read by the browser and presented to the user clearly stating | mobile isn't supported and they should use a desktop browser | instead. | | Then there's the progressive web app (PWA) debacle, where users | don't even know what a PWA is and don't know that they can pin | sites to their home-screen, simulating an app. | calderwoodra wrote: | Our product is the exception here (desktop only web app). | | We basically just account for 800-1300px width range and call | it a day. On the low-side, we show a "desktop only" overlay. On | the high side, we block the content from expanding. | depressedpanda wrote: | > Then there's the progressive web app (PWA) debacle, where | users don't even know what a PWA is and don't know that they | can pin sites to their home-screen, simulating an app. | | Users don't need to know what a PWA is. Thereason users don't | know that they can be 'installed' is because they're on iOS, | where Apple has been effectively hamstringing them in favor of | the Apple App Store. There is a way to install PWAs on iOS, but | it's quite hidden. | mattigames wrote: | The user may tap with their finger and later on they may use a | mouse, many devices support both inputs so don't optmize for | either (even after using one because the user may like to use | both), the user may have spilled coffee on his device and is not | able to see one part of the site, may sure to not put any element | that needs to visible, the user may have a broken screen, its | pretty common after a falling accident, so they cannot tap there, | so don't add any elements that need to be tapped/clicked, overall | the best its to have a blank page that doesn't show or do | anything by design, this way nothing can be broken with the wrong | viewport/device. | mouzogu wrote: | > "The main point we're trying to get across is that you simply | do not know how users are going to visit your website or web app. | Instead of making design decisions on strict, limited | breakpoints, keep in mind the sheer amount of fragmentation there | is in viewports." | | I don't know how useful this is. | | setting breakpoints allows some sanity in the build and testing | process otherwise you have an infinite scope for issues which of | course would be pretty lucrative for a boutique agency. | | > "This goes all the way back to planning your projects too. When | mapping out page content, ask yourself how it will be for the | weird viewport sizes that don't fit the typical mould? Always try | to simplify and condense content to make it useful for everyone." | | it's really not that complicated. keep the amount of crap (stuff | that can go wrong) like animations, weird font sizes and font | faces, javascript to a minimum. and dont do stuff like hijacking | the scroll, zoom or other common behaviours. just dont do | anything unless you absolutely have to. | | but thats why the web is such a hostile platform. difficult to | manage high user/client expectations with pragmatism. | depressedpanda wrote: | > setting breakpoints allows some sanity in the build and | testing process otherwise you have an infinite scope for issues | which of course would be pretty lucrative for a boutique | agency. | | Honestly, now that container queries are available, I see very | little use for breakpoints. Container queries allow for easy | reuse of components, and a truly fluid and responsive design. | tshaddox wrote: | IMO the promise of container queries isn't that breakpoints | will go away, but rather that breakpoints can emerge from the | bottom-up composition of components rather than top-down from | your CSS framework or Tailwind config or whatever. | | You're still probably going to want the left sidebar of your | multi-column layout to collapse behind a menu on narrow | viewports and abruptly appear when the viewport width gets to | >= _n_ [0]. But it 's conceivable that the value of _n_ | emerges from some constraints you specify (such as the | minimum desired width of the sidebar and the main content | column), instead of being chosen upfront from a small list of | predertmined breakpoints. | | [0] E.g. https://tailwindui.com/components/application- | ui/application... | depressedpanda wrote: | While I suppose breakpoints might still have some use | cases, I believe an overwhelming amount of the stuff we | currently use them for can be better and more fluidly | accomplished with container queries. | | The example you give of a sidebar collapse with a menu | button replacement can easily be accomplished with a | container query on the wrapping box, no? | | I'm honestly curious about a use case that a media query | breakpoint can handle, but which a container query can't. | brailsafe wrote: | I wouldn't say it's a hostile platform, I'd say that it's a | volatile design medium. Regarding breakpoints, I've always | agreed with Jeremy Keith's opinion on the subject, which in | some sense is to design for the content and fix it when it | breaks, but to assume that it will and test it as best as you | can. Breakpoints are just a way of demarcating broken/not- | broken layout. I also use them for generalizing design if I'm | doing it before writing the layout in code, which you can do if | you start with no assumptions as to how it will be viewed, and | just choose some arbitrary constraints to move things around | within, then refine when you actually have something in the | browser. | danielvaughn wrote: | The problem is that at a real company, this is very difficult | because you have to argue with your product/design team and | explain why you don't want to implement [x] feature because | it's "too complex". Inevitably they'll point to some competitor | website that has the same feature, which makes you look like | you're just lazy. It's possible to succeed in those arguments, | but it's hard. | | It's one thing to convince them not to do some weird | scrolljacking, but even something like a dropdown or a popover | adds a ton of complexity for responsive sites. | withinboredom wrote: | If your company cares one iota about accessibility, you can | usually get those features off the table instantly just by | arguing that point. "Yeah, well it's pretty clear that | competitor doesn't care about blind people" is a pretty easy | argument. | | I invite you to learn to use a screen reader and try using | your app (whatever it happens to be). It's seriously pretty | terrible for some of these websites with all the fancy crap. | hagg3n wrote: | I envy you cause the teams and companies that I've worked | with basically say fuck em to that argument. | | I have lost jobs and annoyed people trying to argue for | greater care with accessibility. It's somewhat depressing. | avmich wrote: | I think there are some laws which require a certain | degree of accessibility for at least government websites. | And if your big company deals with government, they'd | better think about that. | esdott wrote: | This is exactly what happens. Especially if your voice is | in the minority Or you're the only one. You're seen as a | trouble maker. We all know what happens to trouble makers | when margins are on the line. | withinboredom wrote: | I just stab them in the eyes and then say "now you'll | care about blind people," then calmly walk away. Works | every time. /s | | In all seriousness, I ask something similar to the above: | "Would you feel the same way if you got in an accident | that left you blind for the rest of your life?" Sometimes | this moves a few people to your side. I don't want to be | the only one, but I do care about accessibility. I care a | lot, for personal reasons. But like you said, you don't | want to be the minority trying to support minorities. | [deleted] | smarkov wrote: | > I don't know how useful this is. | | I think very. I've never designed anything based on arbitrary | breakpoints (md, lg, xl and whatever numbers they might | translate to) because that forces me to make design choices | around those constraints. | | The only way to sanely add breakpoints in my opinion is to | gradually reduce the width of your page and search for things | that start looking off. Are your paragraphs starting to look a | little cramped? Add a breakpoint at that width, maybe remove | the sidebar, maybe lower paddings and margins to allow it to | stay a little longer, maybe manually reduce font size or switch | your column layout to rows if applicable. Keep doing that until | you get to ~350px width and everything looks fine. You decide | what needs to change when it makes sense rather than being told | that something needs to change at some specific breakpoint. | traceroute66 wrote: | > I don't know how useful this is. | | The website that is the subject of this discussion comes from | Andy Bell. | | I would encourage you to see his other work, e.g. Every | Layout[1], and the website[2] linked to a recent talk he | gave[3]. | | In particular the answer to your question can be found at | 14:38[4] in the talk, perhaps more precisely the slide he shows | at 14:59. | | [1]https://every-layout.dev [2]https://buildexcellentwebsit.es | [3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uhIiI9Ld5M | [4]https://youtu.be/5uhIiI9Ld5M?t=878 | eternityforest wrote: | There's one thing I absolutely will disable and that is the | MFing pull to refresh. I hate that feature more than pretty | much anything else about the Internet. | | Users can't, for some hideous reasons that should be illegal | due to accessibility concerns, disable it, and it is an | excellent way to accidentally throw away your work several | times a month if you don't have very steady hands, depending on | if the back button decides to not restore. | mmcnl wrote: | I agreed with you until you went overboard with your last | sentence. A "hostile" platform? What in the world? You | literally just mentioned how easy it can be to avoid all this | crap. There is nothing "hostile" about the web. I really don't | like these overly strong statements. | dsr_ wrote: | Fundamental dilemma: | | * The web is a great way to publish information and access a | few services. | | * The web is the cross-platform operating system for | applications. | | Everything stems from the difference in those two approaches. | Both are correct. | ArtWomb wrote: | If you need to get weird now, webgpu has arrived, what we | really require is a dedicated demoscene on the live web ;) | | Your first WebGPU app (Conway's Game of Life) | | https://codelabs.developers.google.com/your-first-webgpu-app | hammock wrote: | Using the data provided, I calculated the minimum window size | in order to have full viewability among a percentile subset of | the audience. Here are the answers: Mobile: | 50% of viewports: Width 375, Height 635 80%: Width 375, | Height 635 90%: Width 360, Height 560 95%: Width | 360, Height 550 99%: Width 320, Height 500 | Desktop: 50% of viewports: Width 1440, Height 900 | 80%: Width 1024, Height 600 90%: Width 1024, Height 600 | 95%: Width 1024, Height 600 99%: Width 800, Height 300 | [deleted] | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | > and dont do stuff like hijacking the scroll, zoom or other | common behaviours. | | The hijacking of scrolling pisses me off so god damn much that | I've considered building Firefox from source and modifying the | code to completely eliminate a website's ability to set the | scroll position.[0] | | Front end devs, I implore you. _Stop acting like you think you | know what the user wants in regards to scrolling behavior_. | Smooth scrolling already exists natively in every browser. | _There 's no need to try to re-implement it in JavaScript_. | Your implementation will not work in every browser, and will | only cause strange stuttering, bouncing, or even end up somehow | completely disabling scrolling altogether. Do not try to get | fancy and implement "momentum" into scrolling. You're changing | a well-understood behavior into something that is unexpected | and jarring, and likely it won't work anyways. | | Do not change the scrolling amount. My wheel sensitivity and | browser setting are configured so that 1-click ~= 2.5 lines of | scrolling. Do not impose _your_ preference of 1 click ~= 1 line | on me. You do not know better than me. | | And disabling zooming? _WHO EVEN DECIDED THAT WEBSITES SHOULD | BE ALLOWED TO DO THIS?!_ It _destroys_ accessibility! Sometimes | there 's text or an image that's just a little too small to | recognize. I'd pinch to zoom in...but some moron front-end dev | has adopted the beyond-bone-headed mentality of "removing | features is a feature!" and makes their site tell the browser | to not allow zooming because...why? Someone please, tell me | why. | | [0] I'm sure it's possible to write an extension that could do | this, but any time you're manually setting the scroll position | in code, you're bound to fuck it up. Rather just completely | eliminate the ability to set the scroll position entirely. | kyleyeats wrote: | You're mad at the wrong people here. I've never met a | frontend dev who doesn't hate moving stuff vertically or | scrolljacking. It's the marketing people that want it. | ncallaway wrote: | The one that hurt me the most was making a page that | started at the bottom and scrolled up. I left a comment | somewhere in the JavaScript apologizing for it. | depressedpanda wrote: | > I'd pinch to zoom in...but some moron front-end dev has | adopted the beyond-bone-headed mentality of "removing | features is a feature!" and makes their site tell the browser | to not allow zooming because...why? Someone please, tell me | why. | | For sites that have no business disabling zoom: no idea, and | it annoys me too. I just chalk it up to dev, designer and/or | managment incompetence, close the tab and never return again. | | /Moron frontend dev | drewrbaker wrote: | As the poor sap who's had to build lots of these types of | sites, I'll tell you that it's not the devs that want this. | It's the damn client that keeps complaining about the | "gravity" or the "momentum" or the "scroll speed" of the | site. Locomotive.JS being the main thing clients want us to | use... no amount of explanation of all your valid points will | persuade them if "this one cool site we like had it". | | I will say this... the scroll speed being different between | Chrome, Safari and Firefox doesn't help our cause... wish | these were normalized at the very least so we can avoid "it | feels better in X, but we use Y browser" notes. | | Allowing an easing function API for scroll would be a middle | ground I could live with. It's better than what we have now | (a bunch of award winning sites emulating scroll with | translates). | zimpenfish wrote: | > And disabling zooming? | | I had a weird experience with Google Groups recently - I | zoomed in because the text was too small and ... the page | resized the viewport to its original pixel size even though | the font was scaling. Ended up with about 10 characters in an | unscrollable viewport. HILARIOUS. | aidenn0 wrote: | I had the opposite problem with a web page the other day. | When I zoomed in, the text resized itself to still fit the | same amount of text in the viewport, but since other | elements would zoom correctly, the more I zoomed in, the | _smaller_ the text got. | paulddraper wrote: | > And disabling zooming? WHO EVEN DECIDED THAT WEBSITES | SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THIS?! | | Applications such as maps, image editors, presentations, and | flowcharts benefit from having control over zoom. (And you'll | notice that almost every one of them does.) | | This of course is only one difference of many between | "documents" and "applications" and the web is being used for | both. | gnarbarian wrote: | yes you're right. we have a map with a toolbar at the top | of the screen. when zoom was enabled people were constantly | zooming in preventing them from being able to see some or | all of the buttons hindering their ability to use the app. | and causing confusion because they didn't realize they were | zoomed in. as soon as we disabled zoom the complaints and | questions stopped. | throwaway14356 wrote: | setting just the toolbar to not zoomable should have been | the obvious solution. | | (In stead I have to disable zooming in on images to | preserve the next/previous/close buttons and implement | zoom from scratch. wtf?) | debugnik wrote: | No, they benefit from overriding the pinch gesture or the | scroll wheel. Browser zoom shouldn't need to be a casualty | for those features to work, it ought to stay available in | some form. | _jal wrote: | Maps drive me fucking nuts, taking over zoom. As do nearly | every other app that does it. They think they know what's | good for me, and they don't, and it leads to me using them | less. Yes, paper maps just work better for me a lot of the | time. | | The only thing maps.app or Google maps are good for are | finding places to spend money or driving to places to spend | money. If you have any other spatial interests, they're | almost pointless. | | I would happily run a build that removes this capability. | paulddraper wrote: | I would love to see your maps app that doesn't touch | zoom. | throwaway14356 wrote: | No offense, I had to try that.. | | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/LARGE | _el... | | Look how fast and responsive it is! | aendruk wrote: | With spatial range requests this could actually be a | reasonable replacement for a slippy map. | shadowgovt wrote: | > The hijacking of scrolling pisses me off so god damn much | that I've considered building Firefox from source and | modifying the code to completely eliminate a website's | ability to set the scroll position.[0] | | That'll break just about every cloud logging UI I'm aware of, | but what you do to your own UA is your business. | johnnyworker wrote: | For me it really just involves squishing the browser window in | all sorts of ways and see what happens, and if I get any ideas | on what I would want to change. I don't see what the big deal | is. | | > crap (stuff that can go wrong) like animations, weird font | sizes and font faces, javascript | | None of these per se are the issue, and you can still have the | issue with zero animations, fonts or JavaScript. | [deleted] | bryanrasmussen wrote: | >I don't know how useful this is. | | >setting breakpoints allows some sanity in the build and | testing process | | clamp allows for sane responsiveness | | https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/clamp | | and if needed you can add some minimal breakpoints. | | The fact is that most front end devs don't know about it, and | there is no framework that I know of which is based around its | use (and everything nowadays seems to be about the frameworks), | thus you end up with inefficient multiple breakpoints which may | seem sane until you get too close to one of the breakpoints and | your design looks like crap until that point is hit and you can | switch to the new values set for the breakpoint. | | breakpoints are a great solution if you happen to be living and | working in the web of 3 years ago. But the clamp, min, and max | functions have been available in every major browser since 2020 | - even Opera. | | People keep telling me 3 years is an eternity in internet time, | so why are there still all these damn breakpoints? | throwaway14356 wrote: | it seems much cleaner to give each size its own css? | adithyassekhar wrote: | I was hoping to read some kind of solution at the end of all this | huge text. Some radical way to do layouts without using | viewports. Instead I got a link to buy a book from some author. | | Why is this even here? This is a long ad with useless data | points. | return_to_monke wrote: | There is, it's called flexbox and the CSS grid. | | I've found that on simple websites a lot of problems are solved | with just a few lines of flexbox config (flex-wrap, etc) | adventured wrote: | There's a way to do it entirely without viewports, although | it's extremely unpopular with designers. | | Present a .css file for mobile or for desktop, based on the | presence of "mobile" in the agent string. Chrome continues to | report that agent data and it's very accurate for this use case | (where your primary aim is to detect mobile equivalent, else | present for desktop). | | You can drop the viewport html tag. All major phones, including | iOS and Android operating systems going back at least a decade, | will automatically scale your site for mobile without viewport. | You customize the mobile version of your .css file for just | mobile. And it's very easy these days to cross check to make | sure the look and compatibility is correct (for Chrome and | Safari mobile in particular). You present different site UI/UX | based on the "mobile" detection; if mobile, present mobile | layout, else present desktop layout. | | Google will punish you (SEO) slightly for the lack of a | viewport tag however. | | This is a far easier way to design for mobile & desktop vs | trying to deal with many different viewports (which is a | ridiculous, backwards problem that represents an industry | failure). | depressedpanda wrote: | For any aspiring frontend devs that might not know better: | they're talking about user agent string parsing. | | Please don't do this. There's a reason it's an unpopular | approach. | madeofpalk wrote: | Cannot tell if this is sarcasm or not... | adventured wrote: | Nope, it works very well. I have been testing it routinely | for a decade now. | | The core to it is simply getting the "mobile" keyword out | of the user agent string. That takes care of nearly | everything, from there all you have to do is a simple css | split for either desktop or mobile. | | It very effectively covers all the major browsers, all the | major platforms, going back at least a decade. | temac wrote: | I'm not even sure what mobile means in this context. What | happens when you plug your phone on a screen? What happens | when you use a tablet? | adventured wrote: | That's very straightforward. Obviously the user agent is | reported by the browser/device as mobile or not (it either | includes that keyword or not). In nearly all cases mobile | means smartphone or tablet, whether Android or iOS, Chrome | or Safari. iPad commonly includes the mobile keyword in its | user agent string, unless desktop is enabled by default and | then they'll just get the desktop version (you could | trivially detect for the iPad keyword and force mobile; | given the userbase size of iPad it would probably be worth | it, it'd take seconds to do). This approach covers such a | comprehensive percentage of users that it's only going to | be an issue if you absolutely need to cover every single | possible variation, and then you have to do it another way | to go from 99% to 100%. | | Your desktop browser doesn't include the keyword "mobile" | in the agent string. Your Safari browser on iOS does, ditto | for Chrome on Android. | | So here's the iPhone 13 Max user agent string: | | "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone14,3; U; CPU iPhone OS 15_0 like Mac OS | X) AppleWebKit/602.1.50 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/10.0 | Mobile/19A346 Safari/602.1" | | The "mobile" keyword gets you what you want. | | Here's iPhone 8: | | "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 11_0 like Mac OS X) | AppleWebKit/604.1.34 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/11.0 | Mobile/15A5341f Safari/604.1" | | The "mobile" keyword gets you what you want. | | ChromeOS desktop (Chrome browser), Mac desktop (Safari), | Windows desktop (eg Chrome or Firefox). They don't include | the "mobile" keyword. | | It's not flawless, getting to 100% requires a lot more | effort. This approach is far beyond good enough however, | particularly for an average site. If you're building a | giant enterprise app and want to appeal to every possible | user and you have a team, maybe you'll throw a lot more | resources at getting the small number of problematic edge | cases. | | And if you're using Nginx, which I commonly do, you can map | the agent key in your http segment, eg: | | map $http_user_agent $mobilekey {"~*Mobile" mobile; default | desktop;} (or vise versa) | | and then you can utilize that for caching related tasks | (attach it to your proxy_cache_key to differentiate a | mobile vs desktop cache). | | And as I've noted, this is widely despised by the HN crowd | despite the fact that it works so well and so easily. | ghusto wrote: | > It's safest to presume that users on desktop or laptop devices | are not filling their entire screen with a browser. | | Not on literally any laptop I've ever seen. I've never seen a | screen where the browser _isn't_ filling all space available to | them, sometimes even the entire screen (in fullscreen mode on | MacOS). | MrJohz wrote: | For general browsing, that's often the case, but for solving | tasks, I often see people using the "snap to side" feature in | Windows. It means you can view two windows side-by-side without | faffing around dragging window sides around, and it's really | useful if you're trying to cross-reference data on a smaller | screen. | | Although I think that sentence would probably be better written | "It's safest not to presume [...]", as in, don't make | assumptions about screen sizes here. | kube-system wrote: | I presume you're talking about maximized windows, but that | still does not equal "filling the entire screen", because | browsers have their own user interface around the viewport. | | Go maximize your browser and enter this into your dev tools: | console.log(`${window.innerWidth}x${window.innerHeight}`) | | Does that equal your screen resolution? | madeofpalk wrote: | I like this because opening the dev tools has a high chance | of changing innerHeight :) | kube-system wrote: | And even if you open dev tools in another window, many | people run browsers that are configured to display other | controls... like tabs, or an address bar. | amiga-workbench wrote: | Its a Mac user thing, they have a collage of overlapping | randomly shaped windows splayed everywhere. Windows users tend | to just maximise their programs or snap them when needing to | multitask. | | Gnome pushes users to fullscreen programs too, with a quick | mouse twitch to get the overview open to switch programs. | chc wrote: | A lot of Linux users tile their windows too. | sebzim4500 wrote: | I think most people have a task bar at the bottom, at least on | Windows and Linux. | PMunch wrote: | You never side by side your browser and another application | like a terminal or text editor? And even barring that the | taskbar of your OS along with window decorations means that | your browser is seldom 100% of the screen. This is also talking | about the viewport, so even though they clumsily refer to it as | the "browser" the website won't be given 100% of your | resolution even if your browser did have 100% simply because of | things like the tabs bar and other navigation. Can you full- | screen a website? Sure. But that's not the common way to | browse. | jerf wrote: | I believe the intention of that statement is to not _assume_ | that it 's filling the entire screen, that is, not to count on | it in some manner. | | A lot of people still make this mistake one way or another. In | about the last year I finally gave up; my tiling window manager | used to have the browser at 2/3rds the screen with the | remaining 1/3 a terminal, but more and more I've been | encountering websites that are very unhappy with that width; | not small enough to kick in mobile mode or they detect that I'm | on a desktop browser and don't adjust, but not large enough for | the design they serve me, creating overlapping regions, or | horizontal scrolling, etc. So my browser is full screen a lot | more often now. On the one hand I'm annoyed, but on the other, | an implication of the article is that you essentially can't | test at "all" viewport sizes anymore and it's just so easy to | accidentally write a website that is unhappy at _exactly_ pixel | widths 892-945 when used with my exact font setup and /or zoom | setting that I can't really stay mad at some of these sites. | Some of the sites I have trouble with are clearly trying, and | are competent in many other ways. You can hardly expect your | designers to visit every page on your site and test every | single width from 200 to 2000 one pixel at at time, let alone | ask them to do it again with a variety of zoom settings. | | Heck, I can't even tell you my own website can do that. I've | checked it on a phone and in my desktop browser at a couple of | sizes, but I can't do it anymore than anyone else can nowadays. | Kerrick wrote: | I've noticed similar annoyances lately browsing sites on my | 4K displays set to 200% scaling and positioned vertically. | Sites tend not to work or look their best at 1080px wide | anymore. | | It almost makes me nostalgic for 960px being the defacto | standard width for desktop sites. | marginalia_nu wrote: | You've never seen a 17"+ laptop I guess? | bandergirl wrote: | [flagged] | ryandrake wrote: | I have a 27" display and browse with the browser window | maximized. I paid for this display, and I expect to use | every pixel. Web designers, however, seem to hate me for it | and choose to constrain the width of their content to a | tiny, 6cm column down the middle of my display, leaving 80% | of the width as whitespace. | bandergirl wrote: | Clear case of _you're using it wrong_ | | I don't know how you expect a designer to fill 27" with | an article. Surely they could add several columns just | for you, though, a great investment of team hours. | | There are very few types of websites that benefit from | all that space and it's usually video and photos. | mcv wrote: | I recently bought a 4K screen specifically to be able to | have an IDE and a browser next to each other. Every once in | a while there's an app that thinks that all of that screen | real estate is really all just for them. It's not. | bandergirl wrote: | Placing windows side by side is the correct usage of the | available space, I hold no qualms against you. | DylanSp wrote: | My guess is that filling the entire entire screen is _common_ , | especially on laptops that aren't hooked up to a monitor, but | not common enough to assume that'll always be the case. | bee_rider wrote: | It just seems like confusing wording. I think you are right | that most people use their programs full-screen on laptops (As | an aside, it is funny that thin-and-light-ism has managed to | progress to the point where the average person finally gets the | 2008 experience). | | But I think what they meant is: it is safest not to presume | that desktop or laptop users are filling their entire screen | with a browser. | | The way they wrote it suggest that the assumption of the | negative is safest, while the way I wrote it says it is safest | not to make the assumption. This has a general smell of the | inverse fallacy, although it isn't like they are trying to make | some bulletproof logical deduction anyway. | catapart wrote: | I'm kind of surprised here, myself, and am very interested in | seeing real numbers because, just from the replies to this | comment I'm seeing a lot of difference of opinion. | | Personally, I always use a browser full screen and most | everything else is 'windowed'. My browser usually ends up | being the "background" of my monitor, only traded out when | I'm writing code, in which case my IDE is the "background" | (full screen). Everything else except games runs in a smaller | window. Dragging and dropping still works, like that. It's | just really convenient. | | From mostly working with other devs, this is usually what I | see. This is how I see MOST people use their desktops. Full | screen browser, always. Then we get to this article and this | comment section and people are talking like it's a given that | MOST people use their browsers in windowed mode. Personally, | the only time I can even remember someone doing that is when | they snap it to an area and then snap something else beside | it. | | My suspicion is this is a Windows/Linux vs Mac thing? | Everything in Mac defaults to "floating" app windows, instead | of defaulting to a single app window, maximized, with sub- | panel windows inside the app renderer. So people just kind of | mentally map it that way, depending on the OS? But then, | that's just a guess! | | Obviously, I don't mean to imply that one way is better or | worse. I'm just kind of intrigued by how blindsided I - and | apparently others - are about this. | | Anyway, you're right about the article's hand-waving. It's | not as compelling to me, because I've had users file tickets | when our "anything past 1060px gets centered on the screen, | instead of expanding to fill" method was displayed on a 4K | screen. They claimed it was "unusable", even though it was | entirely the same, it just didn't expand as much as they | would have like (yes, even on a TV; other users were using it | just fine). So I don't think anything past 800 is less worth | consideration. At the very least, I'd say that number is more | like 960 or 1400. The upper end of standard desktop sizes | instead of the lower. At 800px width, even default browser | font sizes look big. Scaling down to a 10 or 11px font size | is fine for complex utilities, but when you're trying to size | it for big, finger-sized buttons, 800px gets cramped, fast. | | But yeah, the overall advice holds. | flohofwoe wrote: | That's the definition of 'anectodal evidence' though. The nice | thing of desktop environments is that people (still) have | enough freedom to organize windows the way they want without a | platform owner telling them what's "best for them". | RugnirViking wrote: | Nice web design but this jumped out at me: | | (they have 120000 viewpoints): | | "Wembley stadium has a capacity of 90,000, so our datapoints | could fill Wembley once and still fill another third of the | available capacity." | | the way this is written adds to confusion rather than enlightens. | "another third of the available capacity" makes it sound like | there is space left over in wembley i.e. you haven't fully filled | it. | | I think people know how big 120.000 is, but if you must, just say | its more than wembley | shortrounddev2 wrote: | Also, working in an industry with a lot of data, 120k isn't a | lot | afavour wrote: | Come on, that's a silly statement. There's no point comparing | completely context free "amounts of data". | | If the post was "the incredible difficulty of inserting 120k | rows in database" you'd have a point. But it isn't. | paxys wrote: | Such meaningless comparisons also often have the opposite of | the desired effect. I read it and went "there are >8 billion | people all over the planet, and you can fit all the possible | viewports into a single football stadium. Neat!" | pdabbadabba wrote: | > I think people know how big 120.000 is, but if you must, just | say its more than wembley | | Agreed. And if you _must_ compare to a stadium, why not just | pick a bigger stadium? You can pack at least 115,000 into | Michigan Stadium. | | (What's that you say? You've never been to Michigan Stadium? | That's probably another reason not to rely on this kind of | comparison! I, for example have never been to Wembley.) | swayvil wrote: | Could an AI write a JIT custom window manager? Or would that be | too unreliable? | chiefalchemist wrote: | With flexbox and grid, and dynamic text size, how necessary are | breakpoints at this point? | quickthrower2 wrote: | Scroll hijack makes this unusable | ovao wrote: | I didn't experience any issues on my first read through, but on | the second visit it now randomly scrolls back to the top of the | viewport. | paxys wrote: | Pretty ironic that a post about accessible web design is | unreadable because of scroll hijacking that makes it constantly | jump to the top (at least on mobile). | rmilejczz wrote: | ya this gave me quite a hearty chuckle. I'm sure the content of | the article is excellent but it's impossible to read on my | viewport | PMunch wrote: | I wish more pages took the pointer and resolution media queries | into account. So many times I open windows side-by-side on my | desktop and end up with the menu collapsing into a hamburger menu | which fills the entire screen when clicked. Many phones today | have very high DPI and very low precision in touch, so it makes | sense to have massive visual elements and buttons, but my desktop | with the same size in pixels as my phone but a much lower DPI and | much higher input precision doesn't really need them. | TT-392 wrote: | When I visit my bank, with my browser taking up half my 1080p | desktop display, it tells me to use the app instead. | aimor wrote: | I know the official line is that "media types have proven | insufficient as a way of discriminating between devices with | different styling needs." But as far as I can tell most people | really do just want to know if the visitor is viewing on a | monitor or a phone. Trying to back that out through media | features like viewport resolution and pointer types has been a | big mess. I don't think the plan to replace media types with | media features is wrong, but so far we haven't been given the | right features to do what we want. | crazygringo wrote: | I'm actually not entirely sure what you're talking about. | | I'm very familiar with websites switching to mobile layout with | hamburger menu instead of a navigation bar, when you reduce the | width of the browser window on your desktop. BUT I don't think | I've ever come across a _resolution change_ where the website | elements (either hamburger menu or content) get massively | larger. | | Can you provide an example of one or two mainstream sites that | change resolution like that? | | The reason I'm confused is because in CSS everything is based | on logical pixels, not actual device pixels. E.g. a "1 px" | width will be 2 or 3 hardware pixels wide on an iPhone. | Similarly "1 em" will be 16 hardware pixels on a standard | resolution display, but 32 or 48 hardware pixels on a 2x or 3x | display. So web designers don't have to do anything special to | accomodate hi-DPI screens in the first place. | withinboredom wrote: | The resolution doesn't change, but a 64x64px icon button | doesn't need to be that big on a desktop. | crazygringo wrote: | But this is my point, I haven't been seeing any 64x64 px | (logical pixels) hamburger menu icons out in the wild. That | would be too big for mobile as well. | | The hamburger menu buttons all seem normally sized to me | when I make a browser window narrow on my desktop. | withinboredom wrote: | Yes, if you are on a touch screen, you need 'normally | sized' hamburger menus. When using a mouse, a 16x16px | hamburger is plenty big enough. | crazygringo wrote: | I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I'm saying | I _am_ seeing normally sized hamburger menus on desktop. | You 're using an example of 64x64, I'm saying I don't see | that. | | Although 16x16 is a little on the small side even for | desktop. The point isn't just to click it, but to have it | be prominent enough to _see_ and notice as a primary | action. It 's about visibility, not touch area. | | For example, on the SquareSpace homepage (an example | someone else brought up) it's 30x18. That seems like a | nice size to me. It's two pixels taller than the 16 you | suggest, but the extra width helps make it a little more | prominent. Especially since the width isn't taking away | from anything else. | withinboredom wrote: | It is 44x44 on my computer. Absolutely massive. | | https://imgur.com/a/dL1Se2v | rendaw wrote: | The folder on your desktop is roughly the same size. | crazygringo wrote: | It can't be 44x44, it's not even square. | | I can't tell what units you're measuring in, are you | measuring hardware pixels on a hi-DPI screen? We're | talking about _logical_ pixels which is the only thing | that makes sense to measure in and compare. | | But comparing it with e.g. the refresh button on your | browser, it's merely 17% taller than that, in your | screenshot. So I literally don't know what "absolutely | massive" you're talking about. | | It seems perfectly fine to me. Maybe I'd make it a little | narrower, but they probably wanted to balance the logo in | the top left corner in terms of visual weight, so it | makes sense. | omegabravo wrote: | The button is 44x44. The SVG is 30x18 | crazygringo wrote: | If that's the clickable area, is someone complaining | _that 's_ too large? | | You've been able to select radio buttons by clicking on | their text for decades now. On desktop. Often literally | hundred of pixels wide. | | Generous margins for clickable elements seems like a | feature, not a problem. As long as they don't interfere | with anything else (which they don't, here). | withinboredom wrote: | > Often literally hundred of pixels wide. | | And 16 pixels tall... | carlosjobim wrote: | It doesn't work like that. Web browsers do not count actual | pixels when rendering. They adjust high density pixels to the | equivalent real life size of low density pixels. | afavour wrote: | The OP is talking about things like media queries that only | look at screen width and imply other things like input method | from that. | | IIRC SquareSpace does exactly what they're saying: on desktop | sites will have a horizontal list of links but on mobile it's | a hamburger icon that takes over the entire viewport when | clicked. Functionality exists to target pointer type and | things like that in media queries, it's just very rarely | used. | johnnyworker wrote: | Ohhh, I had no idea! Thank you. | | https://developer.mozilla.org/en- | US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/poin... coarse - | The primary input mechanism includes a pointing device of | limited accuracy such as a finger on a touchscreen. | fine - The primary input mechanism includes an accurate | pointing device, such as a mouse. | | This solves everything! What I _really_ want is having more | padding on mobile, that 's it. I prefer things to be | compact otherwise, and it seemed hard to square that | circle... with the pointer media query it's so trivial. | | Gotta love how every time you don't watch CSS like a hawk, | it spawns 500 new features. Thanks again. | withinboredom wrote: | I'm actually surprised this isn't a selector in tailwind | css. | pests wrote: | That is one of the issues trying to re-implement every | css property:value pair with a class name inherent in | Tailwind. | crazygringo wrote: | But that's what you _want_ , no? I just visited SquareSpace | and their homepage seems to work as I'd want. When my | viewport is narrow enough that there isn't space for the | horizontal navbar at the top, it switches to hamburger | menu. | | Surely this is better than cutting off the navbar and half | the page content in the middle vertically, and requiring | the user to scroll horizontally? | afavour wrote: | The hamburger menu could just be a vertical drop down | stack rather than something that takes over the entire | screen. | | The point is that the viewport-covering menu is huge | because it's designed to accommodate touch (i.e. | imprecise) interaction. It could be much smaller when the | user is using a mouse. But you rarely see such | accommodation being made. The assumption is low width = | mobile = touch. | crazygringo wrote: | I still don't get it. | | The _actual menu items_ you select are 20 px font size in | the hamburger menu, and 18 px font size from the navbar | menu. That 's just 11% larger. Nothing about that is | "huge". | | The hamburger menu taking over the whole (narrow) screen | doesn't bother me at all. If I'm using the menu, it's not | like I need to be looking at the rest of the screen. | | And it just feels silly to create a _third_ design. We | already have navbar for widescreen and hamburger menu for | narrow screen. Now you want a third version -- a | hamburger menu that is pop-up rather than fullscreen -- | for narrow desktop usage? I sure wouldn 't want to do all | that extra work. | tacker2000 wrote: | This. Unfortunately today, the desktop is an afterthought and | everything is designed for "mobile first". I even see this in | SaaS apps that should actually never be used on a phone. Or | desktop OSes like windows and mac are increasingly using mobile | paradigms on the desktop. | | There is so much whitespace, huge fonts, huge buttons, | hamburger popup menu everywhere (aaaargh!!) | | Basically it boils down to the "information density" which is | dumbed down to the lowest possible denominator. | | There should be a measure for this and websites/apps should be | rates based on that. | mmis1000 wrote: | It sounds like you are talking about gmail web at md2 era. | The giant sidebar item that can only literally show 6 item on | a 1080 screen. The giant mail row that display only 10 or | maybe 15 mail on whole screen. And new mail button on right | bottom that requires you move your mouse across the whole | screen to write a new mail. | | It really makes me wonder 'wtf? Who designed that, did he | actually try to use it by himself?'. | | At least it seems they steps back a bit now. Also they moved | the new mail button back to top left. | Technotroll wrote: | This is an interesting observation. Do you have some examples | of this? | aendruk wrote: | Screenshots: https://cloudflare- | ipfs.com/ipfs/QmUL69cYwCs2sWV7eHqtt14BEcn... | bandergirl wrote: | > Do you have some examples of this? | | Sorry if it sounds rude, but have you used the web on the | desktop in the past 10 years? Anything under 1000px-wide | windows and sometimes 1200px-wide ones gets you the "mobile | menu" on most websites. It's a consequence of Bootstrap and | other fixed-breakpoint frameworks. Overflow menus like what | you see on GitHub repositories are the minority. | throwaway290 wrote: | react.dev | | And for an example that does it better, legacy.reactjs.org :) | | When I saw it I wondered how they managed to drop the ball so | hard and how much they paid for it. All they needed is to | expand and slightly restructure the docs, but apparently | someone sold them a complete redesign that just made the | whole docs way less usable (a11y aside, can't speak for | that). | cthor wrote: | That masonry layout diagram is horribly deceptive. The boxes | aren't to scale at all. | mcv wrote: | I see it often, and I hate it. It standardises on width, so | everything that's wide (landscape oriented photos, or in this | case desktop windows) gets shrunk dramatically. | | In this particular case, it makes the largest viewports look | the smallest, and makes the smallest ones look largest. It's | indeed very deceptive. | aidenn0 wrote: | Android app authors ought to read this too. I recently had an | android app where the button on one screen was past the bottom of | my screen _and it wasn 't scrollable_. I went to report the bug | and someone else had already reported it. | | Given that the workaround was to set the system font-size small | enough that the button would appear back on the screen, this | would also be an accessibility problem for those who have their | font-size set larger, even if their screen would be normally | large enough to display it. | karmakaze wrote: | Landscape on mobile is the least well supported configuration I | know. Static headers/footers commonly take 50% or more vertical | space with no way to dismiss or shrink them. | coldpie wrote: | I'm going to change your life: https://github.com/t-mart/kill- | sticky | | It's a bookmarklet that gets rid of sticky elements. It nukes | those stupid fucking headers and footers and kills most cookie | banners and "give me your email" type pop-ups. Works in every | browser (I use it in Safari on iOS and Firefox on desktop). I | almost reflexively go hit this bookmarklet on every website | now. It makes the web so much better. | tantalor wrote: | > no way to dismiss or shrink them | | You can shrink them by rotating your phone back to the correct, | portrait orientation. | karmakaze wrote: | Or shrink everything to unreadable sizes with "Desktop site". | layer8 wrote: | It also happens on tablets and notebooks, in particular with | larger font sizes or zoom factor configured. | ciwolsey wrote: | I refuse to read anything even remotely related to accessibility | written by someone dumb enough to put white text on a yellow | background. | teekert wrote: | ? I don't see that anywhere? | adventured wrote: | I'm on desktop so maybe it's different on mobile, however I | don't see a single example on their site of white text on | yellow background, only black text on yellow background. | locusofself wrote: | "The population of our home town, Cheltenham, is around 116,000 | so our datapoints could almost populate the entire town!" | | 120,000 > 116,000, so their 120k data points could _more_ than | populate the town... | terracottalite wrote: | LOL. Line 1268 of that CSV file [0] has a negative height. And it | actually is in the visualization [1]. Wonder what kind of device | reports a -2000 height :D | | [0]:https://viewports.fyi/data.csv [1]:https://viewports.fyi/all/ | lucideer wrote: | There's an elephant in the room here, and it's Adobe. | | The author's put forward a lot of valid criticisms of the | breakpoint-based approach & also provided a really good guide to | doing proper web design, but what's skipped over is that their | guide only works for developer-designers, & won't fit the | workflow of a large proportion (majority?) of people doing visual | design for web. Those designers are have backgrounds in | multimedia or have academic backgrounds in design-forward | colleges with extremely poor html-css modules. And their tool is | Creative Suite - largely because Adobe has a stranglehold on | design education. | | The likes of Sketch have shaken things up somewhat so we at least | have XD, and slightly fewer people are designing entire websites | in Photoshop & Illustrator alone, but even so - the ability of | tools like XD/Figma to allow the designer to model their work | fluidly in a way that matches web viewports is not mature, not | least because Adobe have been historically hostile to the idea | (XD being a very reluctant response to new competitors after | already killing off Fireworks). | agos wrote: | I've started doing frontend work back in 2008, and I | immediately noticed the friction with designers coming from | Adobe tools and their equivalents. It's disheartening to see | that 15 years later the problem is still there | madeofpalk wrote: | > and slightly fewer people are designing entire websites in | Photoshop & Illustrator alone | | Across the wide industry, sure, but I haven't worked with a | designer who uses Photoshop in 10 years... | | Granted, I'm in my own bubble, but over a varity of gigs it's | been Sketch, and now universally figma. | lucideer wrote: | All designers I currently work with are 100% figma, but I | work for bigcorp where things are a bit more formalised & | designer friends working in the startup world are much more | on the multitool/Adobe wagon. | | Even so though, Figma, while an improvement, is still not | where tools should be in this regard. It's a compromise | between what's expected by Adobe-educated users and how | things actually work on the web. | larrik wrote: | > Even on one iOS device, there's a minimum of 3 environments a | website could find itself in, based on operating system states. | | Besides the fact that I'm not convinced the 3d touch one is a | real viewport, how can he miss the fact that there is landscape | mode on these devices, which have completely different | dimensions? | avmich wrote: | The visualization, I think, could be improved. Make a graph of | points, where X and Y coordinates correspond to width and height | of the viewport, this is like imagining all those viewports | having the same left top corner and recording bottom right | corner. Those points on the graph which correspond to more | frequently occurring viewports should be brighter (if not bigger | circles). Many points for large number of small viewports will be | clustered in left top corner, to make points more evenly spaced, | the coordinates could be logarithmic. | +--------------------+ | . . | | | *. .*. | | .**. .. | | | ..*. | | . . | | | . | +--------------------+ | Jabrov wrote: | Literally can't read through this on Chrome iPhone 13 because it | keeps jumping back to the top :( | csydas wrote: | I was seeing something similar with desktop Safari (15.6.1) on | MacOS. Resizing the browser window, and looks like (but not | sure) that it just switches to another breakpoint (their words) | for a new viewport, and they didn't design a way to pass the | page scroll position to the new view port so it just resets the | page position. | | Their "all viewports" page also isn't visible on my browser if | the window is too small as the titles on each viewport aren't | visible. | smilespray wrote: | Same on my iPad Air 4. | tacker2000 wrote: | Same on iphone 12 pro, ios 16 | cal85 wrote: | Same on iOS Safari. Jumps back to the top seemingly at random. | Sometimes I can get a few scrolls down the page but then it | jumps back. | _gabe_ wrote: | This article was great! I think the overall premise is probably | more useful for graphic designers than programmers, because I | believe many programmers kind of implicitly know this advice. | However I've worked with graphic designers in the past that were | obsessed with having their Figma design translate to the web page | in a pixel perfect manner, and they would always be confused when | things didn't align correctly. This inevitably leads to | breakpoint Hell, where they design pixel perfect designs for tons | of breakpoints and ask you to implement them. | | While this is laudable, I think it's important to remember that a | design should focus more on how the layout flows when resizing | the viewport and focusing on a couple target breakpoints. I think | that's what this article is trying to emphasize. | nickdothutton wrote: | I'm not, and never was, a "front-end guy". I've noticed more and | more quirks (bugs?) in UIs where something is off screen, or | unclickable, or suffers extremely unhelpful placement that | prevents or significantly impedes my use of a web site/app. | Rotate phone/tablet, change font size, hide URL bar, mental note | to try it on a desktop or laptop "later". This feels like the | front-end version of "it works in dev". | bobthepanda wrote: | If you've worked in front-end dev for a while you can be aware | of all the issues. | | The problem, generally, is that frontend dev is taught poorly | if it's taught at all, and the barrier to entry is so low that | there's an Eternal September problem. | calderwoodra wrote: | I'd think that eventually we'd have a large enough cohort of | folks that know web dev well since the barrier is so low, but | I think most people try to get out of frontend development | asap. | jonny_eh wrote: | I dunno, I love it, quirks and all. The ability to make and | deploy new UIs quickly is unmatched elsewhere. I also may | be weird in that JS/TS is my favourite programming | language. | zlg_codes wrote: | I'm trying to learn some JS in my spare time, if only to | show in interviews that I _can_ do it, but I understand why | one wouldn 't want to. I'm just doing bare JS for now, but | even with a framework, there is so much to manage in the | DOM to make consistent interfaces, and CSS3 is so much more | complex (but also convenient, in some ways!), putting | together good interfaces is legitimately hard. | Responsiveness is the big hurdle in creating a well- | behaving app, from my perspective. | | I think I could've learned a GUI toolkit and had something | working in the time it's taken me to pick up building two | JS apps. The barrier to entry may be low, but that's only | because the feedback loop for webdev is _super_ tight. | Great for prototyping, experimentation, and getting more | newbies in the field. But it 's crazy that anything | productive gets built on JS and DOM. | | The backend, with databases and storage and caches, service | management and sysadmin, that's where the fun is! | bobthepanda wrote: | JS and DOM are popular mostly because they exist | everywhere, and there's a large ecosystem of support. In | practice, given (until recently) difficulty in hiring, | places found it easier to have one JS team than to have | one native team for every possible platform (Windows, | Mac, iOS, Android, maybe even Linux). And it also does | not help that each native platform can have wildly | divergent frameworks and practices. | bityard wrote: | I have this shaky hypothesis where the majority of UX devs | today (not just web devs) grew up consuming content on smart | phones, ipads, and small laptop screens. Their default way of | interacting with technology is one app or web page at a time, | all in maximized windows taking up the whole screen, and | switching between between full-screen apps to multi-task. | Perhaps this pattern carries over into their adult work, where | they design sites and apps that look great when taking up the | whole screen of a typical PC or tablet, but outright fail when | exposed to a typical "windowed" browser width. | | My normal browser width is about 1300 pixels and I see so many | web sites and apps these days that can't tolerate what I | consider a very reasonable browser width that this is the only | explanation I can come up with. | zlg_codes wrote: | Good points! The unfortunate side effect of having 4k and 8k | screens is that 1080p is still common. I could understand why | they'd assume nobody leaves a browser window covering only a | quarter of their screen, but at the same time, both major | browsers have a Responsive Mode where you can test screen | resolutions, orientations, and tap events. | | There are devices with resolutions under 800x600 still | accessing the Web. Every developer has to place where their | own minimum threshold of consideration is. I personally aim | for those old-school resolutions as the minimum, and may move | upwards to something like 720p if it's a bit more complex. My | screen itself is 1080p, so if it looks good at full screen, | it will probably look decent on 4k as well as long as I'm | using scaling units. | carlosjobim wrote: | Your visitors and paying customers access your site on | mobile. Mobile is the majority. If you don't design for | mobile you lose business. It has nothing to do with the UX | devs. If I notice 80% of my customers come from Japan, you | better believe I will make everything available in Japanese. | The same with mobile. Most people do not use computers. Most | people who use computers only use them for work in specific | applications. Most people who have a computer at home haven't | been able to use it in years, because every time they try to | boot it, Windows Update takes up all the system resources and | bandwidth. | prizzom wrote: | Things I like about this article: | | + A focus on viewport size instead of screen size. | | Few people browse websites in full screen in fact "Full Screen" | browsing is used almost entirely for people using a web browser | for presentations or physical kiosks. A completely different use- | case than regular desktop browseing. | | I _loathe_ the fact that when I tile my windows to half my screen | size the website "helpfully" switches into a tablet/mobile | layout. Incidentally WCAG (which I consider a well-meaning but | ultimately largely useless set of guidelines) can be blamed for a | lot of this nonsense. | | Things that I _hate_ about this article: | | - Like many "analysis" articles they start with a misleading | validation of their sample size. 120,000 datapoints is not | terribly big. | | - Implying that these screensizes can't be grouped together. | Resolutions #3 and #4 are practically identical 393x660 vs | 390x664 is essentially a rounding error. | | - Implying that any sane person should be considering how their | desktop/mobile website should be displaying on a smart watch. | This is totally different use case and (admittedly having never | built anything for a smartwatch) I assume (hope?) that unless | you've somehow identified your design as being smart watch | compatible the browser is very liberally going to strip most of | your layout and styling anyway to just text and headings. | | - Implying that anyone should _care_ about the minor differences | in screen sizes. As a veterean of the Flip-phone days when the | scourge of "form over function" phones (think Beyonce clamshell | phone) was at its previous highest. There is no solving this | problem. Apple swooped in an took a strong-armed approach to | screen sizes that made developing on iOS EXPONENTIALLY EASIER | than supporting MIDP or Android. | | - A useless masonry visualization of viewports in a garish | orange/purple contrast that is impossible to read. Thanks for | nothing. | [deleted] | Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote: | http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ unironically | seydor wrote: | i wish the fad of responsiveness went away. i m fine with zooming | in and out in pages, and i like thinking of a document as a 2d | map. | orliesaurus wrote: | Not sure if the author will read this but, I think there's a typo | on that page towards the end: | | "it's a much difference picture." should be "it's a much | differeNT picture." | Devasta wrote: | The fix is simple: Lobby congress to ban everything except 1024 x | 768 resolution screens. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-08-21 23:00 UTC)