There is a small irony that when reading an article about mobile UX, the website has disabled zoom meaning I can't actually see any of the images in the article.
I do a lot of responsive design, and I turn zooming off So I CAN give you a proper responsive design that you can read and interact with on a small touchscreen.
Why on earth would you prefer to pan around a desktop site designed for a big screen with a tiny cursor when you've got a tiny screen and a massive cursor (fingertip)?
You are making the world worse, what do I care if your site looks nice if I can't read the text? I happened across such a site when I tried to buy a train ticket from my phone a couple of weeks ago, absolutely horrible.
I simply don't get the calculus, people who don't need to zoom won't and they get to see a nice site. What on earth do you win by preventing people that need to zoom from doing that? That they get to see a nice design that they can't use? And that is supposed to be better than seeing a usable site that needs panning? That's insane. I certainly hope your kind of thinking will go away quickly.
> 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?
> 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?
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.
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:
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…
Thank you for proving the point that you can't design to meet everyones need in a way that removes the need for zoom.
Yes, your examples absolutely need zoom, or they will be totally unusable for a large number of people.
I have close to perfect sight, but big fingers, and even on my 5.5" phone the buttons in the first ones were annoyingly small.
In the second one, the text was annoying small. Again on a 5.5" phone. A lot of people wouldn't be able to read it at all without zoom.
> 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…
No, they are people who far to often run into designers who assumes everyone has perfect eye-sight and dainty little fingers and so thinks it's ok to disable zoom.
The only time it is acceptable to disable zoom is if you provide your own, context-aware zooming mechanism and make very, very sure it does a better job than the generic browser zoom.
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.
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.
> 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.
Are you able to articulate 5 or more of those plentiful reasons?
The reasons I can think you would desire to zoom in on a legible, functional, accessible website would be for curiosity, or to see a detail closer and admire the layout. There are details like this in apps all the time and I screenshot it and zoom in on my screenshot. Those are interests (I want to see that closer) that are separate concerns from me using the app.
I'm curious what reasons you might give that would interrupt or prevent a person from using the site as intended because of their desire to zoom in without screenshotting.
Are you able to articulate 5
or more of those plentiful reasons?
At times I have zoomed in or out because:
1. I'm further away from the screen, because my screen is large.
2. I'm further away from the screen, because I am showing a website to a friend or colleague.
3. I'm displaying the site on a projector, and people at the back of the room say they can't see.
4. I'm viewing a website on my colleague's high-dpi display, which she uses at native resolution.
5. I'm viewing a website on my phone while being driven somewhere, and the ride's a bit bumpy so I don't want the text too small.
6. I have a comparatively low-end phone, that most people don't seem to test for; sometimes the live suggestion dropdown for a text box is obscured by my on-screen keyboard.
7. I have a comparatively high-end phone, and I'm not moving around, and I'd like to have more of the article on my screen.
8. I have a comparatively high-end phone, with a high-dpi display, and the page I'm reading just seems to have rendered everything quite small.
9. The website designer has opted for a skinny font I'm having trouble reading.
10. The website designer has decided a feature is unimportant and should be visually unimportant (maybe a link to some terms and conditions, or an EULA or something like that) but I want to be the judge of that.
11. My eyes are tired.
12. My eyes are fine, but I've had a few drinks and things aren't quite as crisp as they usually are.
TLDR: if a user in a test group says "I'm having trouble reading that text" would you say "No you're not"? Of course you wouldn't, it would be ridiculous to do that, the user has first-hand perfectly accurate information you don't have access to. And yet, when a user expresses that they're having trouble reading the text by zooming, and you disable zooming, that's exactly what you're doing.
I feel like a lot of these complaints are endemic to defining things in CSS using 'px' as units instead of more sensible (and repsonsive) modern techniques like defining type in 'pt' and widths in more complex units (percents, or mixed units).
It's possible to avoid a lot of these pitfalls with better design.
1. User far from big screen: You can zoom much faster and easier with your forearm than a pinch gesture
2. User far from screen, unusual viewing angle: how much time to you spend browsing at awkward angles versus dead-on? This seems like a small consideration that would affect some types of sites more than others. I doubt a banking website would feel the same way about this as a social media website project for example…
3. Classroom projection is decidedly not the use-case nearly any mobile website is designed to work under, unless the website is cloud-based projection software, but that's a specialty thing in itself.
4. This is why we define font sizes in PT and no PX, this isn't a mobile or responsive issue, but rather a design choice in CSS
5. Does your mobile browser include a 'reader' mode that isolates text content and provides the ability to make it more legible in these conditions?
6. Ah yes, and what's even more surprising for people is how differently Mobile Safari calculates screen dimensions between iPhone and iPad! Then the difference between how iOS and Android handle keyboards, and then the difference at how those OS's handle browser verus web-app mode. There is currently no good solution to keyboard control.
Anecdotally, we ran into an issue on Friday where an email field was autofocused and the keyboard was popping up and obscuring what you were entering. I didn't make it that way, but I did provide the solution: remove autofocus for touchscreen users: http://staticresource.com/autofocuser.html This is a way that we can have one feature for desktop users where it speeds up entry, but target mobile users separately and provide a better targeted experience for them.
<script>
// Block autofocus for touchscreen users
onload = function(){
if(('ontouchstart' in window)||(navigator.msMaxTouchPoints>0)){
var field = document.querySelectorAll('[autofocus]');
for(var i=0;i<field.length;i++) {
field[i].blur();
}
}
}
</script>
7. I hear you there, I've felt the same way when reading long texts. Any easy workaround would be to allow the user to adjust the font size of the article text on the site within reasonable limits!
8. That's usually a problem with the difference between 'pixels' on your screen and CSS 'px' units. Defining layout in other units in CSS can avoid this problem on HiDPI displays.
9. Testing, testing, testing. I make sure to supply well-made fonts, I use a special set of CSS rules that control the rendering of text display so that the same font renders the same thickness in all browser's and OSes, and with those differences out of the way I can move forward using only weights that work (usually no lower than 400 weight unless the size being displayed is very large) and be sure that they are legible everywhere. Here's my snippet (and honestly, this cuts out SO many other common text rendering bugs):
10. My job is to make sure that the experience of the desktop site, with all of its abilities, functionality, and information, are displayed in an equally recognizable, usable way on mobile. I don't cut features, I don't ever assume a mobile user or desktop user won't want anything. My job is to make it just as great everywhere.
11. Turn your brightness down, you only have one set of eyeballs.
12. I'm not sure panning and zooming will help you feel better when the room is spinning so fast you can't read.
I'm not dismissing these reasons, I believe many of them are small or fleeting and to change an entire project for one of these whims seems short-sighted. Other reasons listed here are 100% valid, and workaround can be found without enabling zooming.
For projects where zooming makes sense I wouldn't have it any other way, but I don't see a compelling case listed here to always have zoom enabled.
> I feel like a lot of these complaints are endemic to defining things in CSS using 'px' as units instead of more sensible (and repsonsive) modern techniques like defining type in 'pt' and widths in more complex units (percents, or mixed units).
What? Isn't px a fixed multiple of pt, with an actual size that varies by platform?
CSS 3 defines pixels that way (1/96 inch, pt is 1/72 inch), but the previous definition was rather different, and had no fixed relation to either inches or ems.
But I thought the change in CSS 3 was because pretty much every actual implementation of CSS 2.1 had taken the definition, chucked it out the window, and used 1/96 inch anyway. So, I don't see how any problems could arise in practice from using px instead of pt.
If the site can render responsively, is there a reason it can't be zoomed?
Both the reasons looking for zoom, and your reasons for not providing it seem reasonable. Is there some technical barrier for not enabling zoom?
Zoom is a first-class gesture on mobile, it is the second one after scrolling that you always expect to be there. On a desktop, you generally have more desktop than you need for a window, so it is possible to resize the window to adjust the size of the viewport. Responsive sites work nicely in the case. On mobile, there is no "window" and the device's dimensions themselves are the viewport. You can reorient the device to enable changing the width, but without zoom, you are taking away any ability to change the viewport.
Maybe zoom isn't a critical feature, but it is part of how the devices work. As a result, it is an expected interaction for those on mobile. Have you ever used a piece of desktop software where you couldn't resize the window - it drives you crazy. Ignoring expected behavior is contrary to good usability.
> Is there some technical barrier for not enabling zoom?
“Safari on iOS displays webpages at a scale that works for most web content originally designed for the desktop. If these default settings don’t work for your webpages, it is highly recommended that you change the settings by configuring the viewport. You especially need to configure the viewport if you are designing webpages specifically for iOS.”
Zooming is enabled by default on Mobile Safari as a feature to help mobile users navigate sites not designed for mobile.
Apple intentionally added many different ways to control the viewport, including the ability to disable zoom.
“Setting the viewport width should be the first task when designing web applications for iOS to avoid the user zooming in before using your application.”
So it very much sounds like Apple has added this functionality as a usability feature to help mobile users navigate sites designed without regard to their specific hardware, Apply strongly recommends setting the viewport specifically for the pages you design with iOS in mind. Also note, when looking through Apple's documentation that they refer to the gesture as 'zooming' and the feature in Mobile Safari as 'user scaling.
OK, so you're suggesting that we not enable a "usability feature" because Apple's guidelines suggest that there are alternative ways to specify the correct viewport?
I get the design angle, and I don't disagree that setting the correct viewport is a good idea, but you shouldn't assume that good design and correctly setting the viewport will work for everybody. The fact remains that the zoom gesture is critical on mobile, and disabling it does not help anybody use your site.
On responsive sites, the idea behind them is that the site does its best guess of being responsive based on the size of the viewport. However, sometimes it doesn't work out, sometimes the websites behavior isn't as intended, sometimes the designer didn't test with my exact device, size, eyesight, etc. It is nice in those cases that I can make up for the site not being designed for my mobile by using the zoom feature as intended.
> K, so you're suggesting that we not enable a "usability feature" because Apple's guidelines suggest that there are alternative ways to specify the correct viewport?
No that's the opposite of what I'm saying. Apple has created a usability feature called 'User Scaling' and enabled it by default for usability purposes. Apple also added the <meta> tags that control the viewport, including disabling User Scaling, and strongly urges designers & developers to do two things:
1) Design your site with iOS users and hardware in mind
2) Use the correct viewport tag that gives the best experience
> On responsive sites, the idea behind them is that the site does its best guess of being responsive based on the size of the viewport.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. There's not much guessing going on here, you are either able to define the viewport, or it will render the page at the widths specified in the page styles. If you have defined the viewport there is no guessing involved and it will render the same way from device to device.
> sometimes the websites behavior isn't as intended, sometimes the designer didn't test with my exact device, size, eyesight, etc.
Chances are I didn't test with your exact device, but when I style things I have a set of rules and tools that help ensure that the same content renders the same way anywhere. If I tested only against released hardware then my sites wouldn't be future-proof. I design my stuff to work on all screen sizes smaller and larger than would be in use today so it not only shows up the same everywhere, but will continue to show up the same on devices released years from today.
I also regularly test on quirky hardware like PS Vita, and anything else with a browser that I can get my hands on just to make sure there aren't any weird bugs or edge cases.
Here's a real-world case study: a friend had a sign up funnel and was tracking 900 different mobile devices on his site. On my main gig we have 1,300+ different devices a month! I put my responsive and mobile polish on top of his existing site and we moved the needle on signups 2% since then, and that change has lasted. Clearly, whatever I'm doing it making it easier for mobile users to get in the door with their dollars, and I have the numbers to vouch for that!
> Clearly, whatever I'm doing it making it easier for mobile users to get in the door with their dollars, and I have the numbers to vouch for that!
The flaw in this argument is that you are measuring across the total population, and totally ignoring that while your overall changes may help some proportion, some parts of it may actively prevent others from using the site at all.
Great for you if all you care about is the money. Not so great if you want to e.g. ensure people with disabilities have a good experience too.
Screenshotting is something that almost nobody knows how to do. And even if everybody did know how to screenshot, it's so much slower and inefficient that it's a completely unacceptable replacement for the natural, and designed zoom interface.
> Screenshotting is something that almost nobody knows how to do
I got a really good laugh at this one, a cursory glance of user-generated content online shows tons of people not only know how to screenshot their devices, but are quite adept at figuring out how to share those screenshots with each other and the world.
The people that are taking those screenshots to generate that content make up a tiny minority of users. Most people don't know how to screenshot, and the basic point that you shouldn't have to take a screenshot to zoom into a page is still a good one.
Looking at social media, it seems like lots more people know how to screenshot than directly download an image, leading to screenshots of images being shared. Strange phenomenon.
User-scaling of the viewport is thankfully not the only way of enlarging text inside of a web page. It's possible to design a site that allows the user to change the font-size of relevant UI controls without rendering the layout wider than the device screen (causing the user to have to pan around to read it).
If you're not providing a better experience than a fully working desktop site, then you shouldn't attempt responsive design at all and let mobile users use a non-targeted but working site. I only shut of user-scaling on sites where the targeted mobile experience is better than a scaled fully-working desktop layout.
If you e.g. can't read it because the text is too small, the design is not perfect (for that user at that time), and zoom should not be disabled.
My point was that the moment a user is trying to zoom, for whatever reason, they have already decided that the design is not perfect for them in the present circumstances on the device they're currently using.
And so the only thing disabling zoom is going to achieve is annoying the user by artificially preventing them from trying to improve a situation they've already deemed is suboptimal.
If zooming is better than having a properly designed layout for the device you are using, how did all the app developers get it wrong? Nearly every app on my phone is formatted for a small touchscreen, and not simply a desktop-sized program on a desktop shrunk to fit my phone screen (allowing me to zoom in and push a tiny cursor around). Form follows function, and so an app designed for a mobile device would look different than an app designed for a desktop computer. The hardware and capabilities are very different.
The great part is, with recent support in CSS we can build one site and target desktop users and mobile users with entirely different hardware, and give them a unified experience and layout that's tailored to their device. When they use the desktop it's the same website, fit to their screen and ready to be used with a mouse and keyboard. When it's from a mobile device - all of the same information and actions are still there, just presented in a way that's intuitive and natural to users of a mobile device.
If you've ever used a mobile simulator on a computer you'll know how awkward it is to emulate the most natural and smooth fingertip gestures with a mouse. It's clunky! Well trying to pretend you're a desktop with a mouse when youve got a tiny screen and a big mouse (fingertip) is just as awkward and useless.
With zooming enabled, every tap you make takes 300ms longer to register because it's listening to see if that tap is a tap or going to be part of a zooming gesture.
I design my stuff to look good well beyond normal tolerances for screen sizes, and trust me - I am not your enemy here. I do what I do to give the best experience and if zooming ended with an easier-to-use experience then for sure I would enable it.
I do a lot of other things to make it easy for mobile users too:
- use tel inputs for numerical entry (mobile users get a keypad instead of a keyboard)
- user email inputs for emails and turn off autocapitlize (mobile users get a keyboard with an '@' symbol)
- use retina graphics, or render imagery in code for retina and pixel-dense displays
- every layout I create works from 300px-1500px, and some of the more important elements in the layout I may get working from 200px-2000px to be certain they will work everywhere.
- I use a massive wish-list of fonts that includes great defaults for OS X, Windows, Linux, Android, and iOS
- I use the least amount of JavaScript that makes sense to accomplish what I need to do (I hate sites that constantly crash the tab on mobile)
- I add offline and web-app tags according to the project to help users who may add the site to home screen have the best experience (not all sites are built for web app mod)
- I also add in special icons just for mobile users so if they bookmark the site they will have a nice icon as well
- I disable text-selection or pointer-events for items that may be errantly tapped on, or to help you be able to more easily select text you are trying to select on mobile. Text selection, copy, and paste on mobile is a magnitude more difficult than for a desktop user
So I'm not just disabling it because somebody told me to, or showed me that's how it's done. I work hard and develop, and use these devices, and building a desktop site you can pan around does not provide as good an experience as a properly designed responsive site.
I'm a mobile user too, trust me when I say I fight for your experience to be the best there is!
Nothing in my list was meant to be a justification for disabling zoom. My justifcation for that is: I am a formally trained designer and I design UI properly for the devices and hardware my projects are intended to be accessed with.
The other stuff I mentioned were just other examples of things 'from the frontline' that I do to optionally enhance the site for mobile users with no effect on desktop. I design everything with two very different targets in mind.
Please please stop disabling zoom. I beg of you, I have to abandon sooo many sites because they are unreadable because I can't zoom.
>I am a formally trained designer and I design UI properly for the devices and hardware my projects are intended to be accessed with.
If designers were actually licensed, I think that disabling zoom should be an offense that results in a 2-year revocation of design license. It's so user hostile that it's unacceptable. That you are trotting out your "formal training" in response to user pleas shows that you really don't have many legs to stand on.
> any low-vision users have software-based screen magnifiers. Sometimes they augment the magnifier with text-to-speech software when reading longer passages of text.
[...]
> to be truly accessible, a website must allow individual preferences in colour, size and typeface to override the author’s suggested design.
The website you provide to support your position tells you not to do what you're doing.
(Ironically, the accessibility guidelines are in an unaccessible PDF).
>Does it change your mind at all that you linked to a zoomable site?
No, I said I decide based on the needs of the project and which devices will be supported which META tag makes the most sense. Not 100% of my projects disable zooming, and I don't believe 100% of sites should disable zooming. Zooming is a useful feature added to mobile browser that does serve a purpose: to allow the user to navigate a site that was designed without their device/hardware in mind. It's good at what it does, but it's not better than a properly designed site (whatever that means). My job is to figure out for each project what a properly designed site means, and for the big web-app type projects that make the most money, having zooming disabled allows me to deliver a better experience I couldn't with zooming enabled.
But I didn't link to the RGD.ca site to help prove my case, my learning comes from actually doing web development, not what an organization says is best practice. Mine comes from hundreds of hours of specializing in making sites that dont support mobile convert more users. People hire me because I help them reach more mobile customers, and I make a fraction of the money I make for my clients by supporting mobile better.
I posted the link to the Registered Graphic Designers site because the commenter above me said:
> If designers were actually licensed, I think that disabling zoom should be an offense that results in a 2-year revocation of design license.
Here where I live if you're RGD you get letters after your name like a dentist or reverend. So a little education before speaking can help keep the conversation on a contructive path.
I listen to my users and none have complained about zooming where zooming has been disabled. There are voices here offering opinions and I do actually care about their reasons.
Please, tell me the reasons why zooming on a legible, usable design is necessary. Explain your side of things, downvotes and ad hominems aren't constructive, and there is value in this conversation being had. Why is this conversation being treated like spam? Here's your chance to tell the guy who makes mobile sites the way they are how you wish they were different and all you want to do is stop others from seeing that I'm listening here on HN?
I'd appreciate any constructive input on the pain points of using mobile sites. Today's work includes taking a credit card form designes in 2009 and making it work on mobile. Seriously, if there's valuable insight you have that I can use to make this easier for you I'm all ears.
> Please, tell me the reasons why zooming on a legible, usable design is necessary
Because what is "legible, usable" to most users still isn't to some. Not all of us have good eyesight. Some of us have horrendous eyesight. You may think that 16pt text is "legible", but for some users, nothing less than 32pt is readable.
I have no idea why you would add css that diasbles zoom.
Do everything you currently do, but don't add "user-scalable=0" to the css. Doing so provides no benefit to anyone, but does make your pages harder to use for a large section of users.
You still haven't listed the benefits of disabling zoom.
User scaling is more than just the zoom gesture, it's a different way of controlling the web page in Mobile Safari, and because of these differences the user experience is quite different. With User Scaling enabled, you can use the zoom gesture, pinch gesture, or double-tap gesture to scale the viewport.
But how does Mobile Safari know the difference between a single-tap and a double-tap? By waiting 300ms after the first tap to see if you tap again!
By disabling user scaling, yes the zoom gesture (and pinch gesture) no longer scale the viewport, BUT Mobile Safari also stops delaying all tap input 300ms to wait for a double-tap. that means every link you tap, every button you press, every field you highlight, and every other interaction with the site goes much faster and smoother.
Faster tap response time = a better user experience. Even if the site was 100% responsive, when I turn user scaling off Mobile Safari just works faster than with a fully responsive, scaled and accurately displayed site where Mobile Safari is waiting to tell single-taps from double-taps.
I know for some people 300ms doesn't sound like a lot, but for us it would translate into a loss of at least $,$$$ annually if not $$,$$$ due to the loss of those mobile users due to a 'non-responsive' site in a different way: time.
Stop being user hostile. It's illegal in your jurisdiction; your customers do not know what you're doing and almost certainly wouldn't want you to do it if they did understand; and the users hate it.
I am aware of this, but most iOS users do not use Chrome. I am also aware of FastClick and Google's FastButton as well, and I have even used them where the need applied.
You seem to not accept that what is usable for you may not be usable for others.
By disabling zoom you are actively chosing to exclude people from your products. Depending where you are that's illegal, but where ever you are it's a really unpleasant thing to do.
Further: you are actively preventing people using assistive technology.
Do you have any examples of your websites?
Do you have any sources that say disabling zoom is a good idea?
My training was in graphic design, and the web training we got in college was behind where I was self-taught in web before getting to college, they only covered the basics.
By leaving the User Scaling on, the browser slows down all of your taps 300ms to wait and see if your single-tap is really a double-tap to scale the page. By disabling User Scaling, your interactions are read as soon as you make them, leaving you a much improved experience due to 'page reposnsiveness'. With user-scaling on, and a proper responsive design, there's no need to slow down every tap every user makes on the site 300ms just in case some users want to occasionally scale the page instead of finding another way to accomplish what they want.
> and the web training we got in college was behind where I was self-taught in web before getting to college, they only covered the basics.
As I thought so no formal training in design for screens.
Screens are not paper. Please be responsive yourself, be a life long learner and stop disabling zoom. Can google analytics or somesuch look for failed pinch to zoom events followed by someone leaving your website?
P.S. responsive means that the website responds to the screen size and looks fine on a 40" wide screen or on a 4" smart phone. It does not mean anything about speed of response (which is a nice thing to have obviously but not at the expense of basic function).
P.P.S. there are two responses to a non-zooming website:
1. That of someone that knows what the web-designer did: "Why on earth did the * web developer disable zooming. I'm closing the tab."
2. Non-techy people: "Grunt aaahhh why is this * website not working. I'm closing the tab and never coming back".
The assertion "responsive = 300ms = no zoom" discredits any resume with written "responsive" on it. Because, if you remain stubborn even after a crowd tells you they need to zoom, then you lack the basic skills to drive user interviews.
Even on a proper responsive design, sometimes the images are too small to read (like this article for example, which has screenshots of other phones).
Furthermore, even on my desktop I'll use zoom sometimes (you know you can zoom on the desktop too right?) because I can't read something, and it's a lot easier to zoom than to try and screenshot it and then enhance in some other program.
Further down you said you've been on sites where you wish zoom was disabled. Can you show me even a single example? Did you mean that you wish the designer hadn't relied on zoom for their page to work? Because that's a very different thing than "the site was perfectly ok on mobile but they had zoom on and I didn't want it on". In fact, if their design was good enough for zoom to be off, how did you even know they had it on?
You really need to stop disabling zoom. It's hostile to a wide range of users. This includes far more people than those with a traditional visual impairment.
Have I been on sites where I wished zoom was enabled? Yes
Have I been on sites where I wished zoom was DISabled? Yes
The point is, I design my stuff so it feels like a native app. I design my stuff so it is as accessible as the apps that came with the device. Zooming is a feature added to mobile browsers so mobile users have a fallback to view websites that dont support mobile screen sizes, but designing websites for mobile intentionally to make use of a fallback for non-mobile support isn't using the mobile device to its fullest potential?
Without zooming, how do you all use things on your phones that ARENT websites? They don't zoom either...
If I enable zooming for users, every tap on every mobile device is going to get slower for every user. Is that in the interest of better UI?
Do you think users tap more, or zoom more when using web apps?
Would you rather fill out a desktop Credit Card subscription form by zooming and panning around, or using a form designed to be input with a thumb where all of the fields are fit to the screen width?
I can tell you right now, if I designed our sites like some of these HN commenters want it would be comfy for them to browse and we would lose thousands of dollars revenue. As others have noticed, there are browsers that have a zoom override, as well as bookmarklets and other ways you can bypass the no-zoom thing if you're a mobile user with special needs or who likes zooming. YOU can enabled that device-wide for yourself if that's how you like it, but it doesn't make sense for all projects to be built the same way when the goals and intended support for projects varies widely.
>> To enable Zoom, use three fingers and double-tap the screen.
>> To increase the level of Zoom, use three fingers to double-tap and hold, then move your fingers up or down on the screen to increase or decrease magnification.
> If I enable zooming for users, every tap on every mobile device is going to get slower for every user. Is that in the interest of better UI?
> Without zooming, how do you all use things on your phones that ARENT websites? They don't zoom either...
yes they do. I have it enabled on my phone. Here' the iOS Reddit app, first[1] the way I normally use it, and second[2] they way it would look on a default phone.
I've yet to see a web-app designed to look native, that worked better for me than the normal website would have on my phone. This is why I'm so skeptical
It's not about looking native, it's about being as easy to use as a native app instead of feeling like you're controlling a desktop website with a touchscreen interface.
I use VNC on my iOS devices all the time - I pan and zoom around and use actual desktop apps and browsers from mobile devices. I guarantee this is not the most optimal way to control things from a mobile device!
- You're not enlarging the font size, you're scaling the entire viewport. When thew viewport is larger than the screen things like modals (or other UI elements) may not appear where they are supposed to, if at all for the user
- slows down the time browsers respond to a tap by 300ms
- makes text difficult to read by the time the font is large enough because line lengths and line breaks happen off the screen now, so you're constantly panning to read your text
- users don't complete as many forms when they can scale the viewport, completing out forms is an integral step of nearly all online business models in some capacity
- without scaling disabled, a second tap within 300ms of an initial tap will zoom in on that section of the page. When developing web apps with game features I want to be sure that if the user taps too fast the page stays put
- User-scaling was not intended as a feature for mobile websites, but rather as a stop-gap to allow smartphone users to view desktop sites written by designers who had not prepared their site for mobile visitors. It's never been the plan or roadmap for mobile sites to use the zooming feature, and Apple provided developers a way to turn it off and encouraged them to do so if they add targeted support for mobile
The images look great in landscape mode. But it's still an absolute crime to disable zoom.
Skype has the most egregious dropdown - country code with 200 menu items - when it would be so much easier to type the country code along with the number.
But this article is specifically about design for mobile, and it contains a design element that is hostile to mobile use; and we are unable to talk about the content of the article because a lot of it is in the images, which are unreadably small.
It's also a bit disturbing that a comment asking for a wide section of society to not be excluded from some content is met with "just ignore it".
Edit: changed "your" to "some". Also, I don't think parent comment deserves downvotes. I upvoted it.
It's not my content, I don't know what made you think that. And mobile users aren't a "section of society", they're everyone. This isn't about exclusionism.
Yes, having an article about mobile UX design that isn't available on mobiles isn't good for mobile users, but it's no more hypocritical than a journal article about mobile UX design not being available on mobile, it's just the article being on a different form than the form being discussed. That happens, but it doesn't need to be the focus of discussion.
Actually, in this particular case, I'd argue that this is incredibly relevant: Preacher preaches against UX sin. Commits UX sin with a non-zooming harlot.
Absolutely. Meta comments are often more important than the article they comment on, especially when they place the worthiness of an article in proper context.
It's not a dumb rant against dropdowns: it's a well written piece with lots of examples and arguments that show which UX patterns are better than a dropdown for specific usecases. That's not preaching, it's explaining.
Finding a small flaw in his site and using that to downplay the quality of the article and the competence of the author is shortsighted, rude and unfair. Nobody's perfect. Everybody makes mistakes. Bragging about it on Hacker News doesn't help anyone.
Good point. I will say, though, that disabled zoom is a for more prevalent, annoying, and chronic problem than dropdowns.
It's orders of magnitude difference. Like, years to days. As in, maybe once or twice a year I get annoyed by a misplaced dropdown, whereas every couple of days I get annoyed by disabled zoom. One can make a solid critique of the wine at dinner but it's not irrelevant to point out the restaurant is on fire.
It isn't really a small flaw when your article about mobile faux pas doesn't work on mobile for many.
It's just people making a comment about that fact and other people agreeing or responding with an opinion. That discussion isn't stopping anyone from discussing anything else.
To zoom on the first picture, i tried pinch zoom --> didnt work --> tried clicking --> took me to twitter --> again had to click on the image --> again didnt work.
Finally read the article by guessing what is happening in the image.
Yes, the internet is full of these so called experts. How do they end up being upvoted here is telling about the quality of the average reader unfortunately.
Sorry if I am hurting feelings here but it is true. You have to be a special flake if you think this is quality content. So please, go ahead with your reactions, they speak volumes about who exactly is the gross of HN.
You're talking about yourself.
If you had the opportunity to actually read HN for some time, you'd know there is no "average" here.
None of us can be an expert in every field, but the level of knowledge you can find on HN is something I've never seen before
