- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:42:38 +0000
- To: "Belov, Charles" <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
[Belov, Charles:] > > It would be a problem if a browser vendor chose to do that, specifically > because it would require horizontal scrolling to read each line of a > zoomed paragraph. The spec needs to require that zoom-and-reflow be > available. No. We do not define browser UI or user experience. Many phone and tablet browsers do not support zoom-and-reflow today. (But they support interactions such as double-tap zoom to quickly fit the designated content into your physical viewport and avoid horizontal scrolling, for instance). There are just too many possible scenarios and environments - in terms of device types, inputs/outputs, ebook vs. magazines vs. web sites vs. apps - to force anything on all UAs. And, quite frankly, little evidence that it is needed. > > > In the meantime we still need to agree on the interactions of this > > property with reality. > > > [Belov, Charles:] > >> What would be nice is if the end user has the choice as to whether > >> zoom occurs with or without reflow. Specifically, zoom with reflow > >> obviates the need to scroll horizontally multiple times in order to > >> read a single paragraph. On the other hand, zoom without reflow is > >> good for navigation pages. > > > > That's a user experience issue that is orthogonal to the question of > > how this property should behave. > > It wouldn't be orthogonal if the use cannot force reflow-type zooming with > their personal style sheet, so that would seem (to me) to be a > requirement. > Whether and how the property should react to commonly implemented zoom models is 100% orthogonal to whether browsers should support a particular zoom model. If you want to keep discussing this topic, please start a new thread. Thank you.
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 01:43:26 UTC