Re: [css-device-adaptation] New draft

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
> The fix, for some time, has been to allow authors to disable zoom in the UA:
> this is a standard on mobile devices.

Hrm, no one told us. We've shipped the n800, n810 and n900 w/o support
for this. We have an open bug database and I don't recall anyone
complaining about it either. -- And they do complain about all sorts
of things we've screwed up.

> In this case, I think it's important to recognize that there are use-cases
> where zoom becomes a usability issue, and "magnify" is more appropriate.

> On the topic of zoom in web-apps:
> I recently did some quirk-work, using window.outerWidth and
> window.innerWidth  to guesstimate the current zoom factor.
> It seems to me that the UA should alter window.devicePixelRatio upon zoom
> actions -- the one I was working in does not.

Lists of UAs and how they behave would actually be useful if published :)

> Anyway, my point there: zoom is actually quite useful for web apps -- we've
> made our GUI respond appropriately.

My experience w/ app developers is that 98% get things wrong. However
it is heartwarming to hear that there are exceptions.

> It seems again, that there is still a question of zoom vs magnify. Zoom is
> intended to enlarge the UI and shrink window.innerWidth.
> Magnify is intended to display a portion of the window, at a larger
> magnification level, without altering the model.

> Within the context of our web app, both modalities are valid/useful. And, so
> is the option of disabling zoom, on small screens (like the iPhone).

The n900's screen is roughly the same size as the iPhone... The
resolution is higher than the classic iPhone but probably lower than
the iPhone 4 (I haven't checked the specs).

I was playing with an iPad while on vacation and I seem to recall the
store clerk demoing some platform zooming features, I'd hope they
applied to the iPhone too.

> I think, as discussion goes on around viewport, magnify should be further
> reviewed.

Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 17:52:58 UTC