It looks like they don't follow their own advice:
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<meta http-equiv="x-ua-compatible" content="ie=edge">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1, maximum-scale=1.0">It looks like they don't follow their own advice:
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<meta http-equiv="x-ua-compatible" content="ie=edge">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1, maximum-scale=1.0">maximum-scale has only three valid uses:
1. extreme values, like 5.0, if a browser misdetects that zooming that far is useful when it isn't (rare)
2. pure-app websites like maps or video games that have alternative scaling arrangements and browser pinch-zoom gets in the way.
3. there is no number three, and the thing you are thinking of is incorrect.
maximum-scale is an automatic usability and accessibility fail otherwise, you are bad and should be made to feel bad if you use it.
maximum-scale=1.0 causes the page to be unscalable on mobile and is almost never what you want.
I wish more people realized this. As somebody that's visually impaired, it makes mobile browsing quite painful for me.
https://webkit.org/blog/7367/new-interaction-behaviors-in-io...
OMG, I thought how much money is this company losing because their website intentionally disables a built in feature!?
I guess they won't know what business they're losing 'cos they won't know people are leaving the site because of that specific issue.
If they're on the ball, their tracking might be good enough that they can see people leaving on that step and try to zoom in on that problem area.
If they're really good, they might spot they get no sales from users with a certain resolution and try it out for themselves.
Only asking because it’s a friend’s site and I helped him build the quote modal which you currently can’t zoom.
Very odd.