On web, use `overflow-wrap: break-word` and make sure your header can shrink.
On web, use `overflow-wrap: break-word` and make sure your header can shrink.
Soon the time comes when old.reddit.com is no more and that is farewell.
Without users writing new content (because the site is crap) the Google stream will dry up too.
So, same as talkradio?
Their latest update on my iPhone 15 Pro (so the most vanilla configuration) has some kind of reverse padding on posts that will drag them under the previous one.
Sure they do. You're just not the target audience. You're stuck in the A/B testing phase where the A side gets Advertisements and the B side gets the B-rated website.
These re resolutions are usually significantly higher then the iPhone mini. usually The product owner or UX/design make that decision because you need to make a cut somewhere, and almost nobody uses small phones anymore. So they're making the judgement call that these people aren't worth the money creating the design, testing that every flow works correctly etc.
It's definitely annoying to be outside of the target demographic however, I know the feeling well.
- Their intent isn't small resolution, they're discussing increasing font size beyond the default on a standard premium smart phone[1]
- Retina displays came out when I was still in college...2010? At that point, resolution is meaningless, things like dp (Android parlance)/pts (iOS parlance)/points (Adobe or font parlance) rem are what you have to hang your hat on
- if you're making "someone else" (?) tell you what resolutions to support, are they technical enough to understand that?
- The invocation of "medium to big enterprise" is carrying a lot of weight, the big enterprises I've worked at certainly didn't do this, but it was Google
I think this is something more depressing that I saw constantly through the eyes of someone who started at SmallCo then went to Google: designers didn't know enough about view layout to explain this, engineers didn't care enough to explain because it was a "design thing", and if you were an engineer who cared enough, you were seen as troublesome / sticking your nose in the wrong place by your fellow engineers.
This isn't an idle observation: by sticking my nose in the wrong place continually, I learned enough about design to make a new dynamic design system that no one cared about until VPs needed one, and then it got in on the branding for Material You/Material 3.
[1] iPhone Mini is 5.4", the post you're replying to is recommending 5.8", that's a pretty de rigeur smart phone screen, even for premium smart phones in high income countries
Ofc the person isn't asked which pixel density, pixel ratio, resolution etc should be supported - they're asked what the smallest device is they should support. And this is usually the iPhone, and raising issues if a design doesn't work on a iPhone mini gets reprioritized into the backlog until someone closes it as won't fix.
And yes, I'd wager these multinational giga corporations like MAMA (Microsoft, Apple, Meta, Alphabet) are very different in culture, but I can't speak from experience, Ive never applied to work for any of them
I believe my nation classifies small enterprise to be <50 employees, with large starting at 250. That's a very different organisation structure then you get in a corporation with tens of thousands of employees, spanning multiple nations.
They also don't understand that people will visit your web site with their phone, even tho we have a native app.
I don't think I've ever seen a website respect my phone's text size, and frankly I didn't know it was posisble, this Airbnb blog post is cool and makes me want to update my own sites.
That's just bs. As a maker of UI, I want to get a rectangle, put my controls on it with the sizes in cm/in/° as I see fit and then to just slide right-bottom to see what happens on different screen sizes. One doesn't have to buy a foot-high stack of smartphones and tablets to test an effing label.
The whole issue stems from the fact we can't measure things correctly, cause the whole measurement system bases on ideas from winword era.
Maybe I'm not sure what you mean, but this is not correct. "The web" is definitely DPI-independent. Specifying a width of 16px will render 32 physical pixels on a @2x display.
Not gonna rewrite or patch a whole CSS framework to make a dashboard. One can avoid using it in the first place, but then has to cope with elusive y-scroll in line inputs, misalignments and so on. There's always something strange out of box even if you target a specific browser.
The two obvious examples which come to mind are mounted displays (from wall art and signage to billboards), and glasses-based displays.
A 1cm font size on a mobile device is ludicrously large. On outdoor signage it's invisible, and quite possibly below pixel size. It might be appropriate on a desktop display for some major title or site branding. It's going to fill the entire field of view on a face-mounted display.
The simple truth is that design has to respect not only device capabilities (your colour-palette likely works poorly on monochrome e-ink devices, ask me how I know), and reader capabilities (colourblind? glaucoma? cateracts? presbyopia?, macular degeneration?) but also the specific use case and environment, all in ways that the author of a site or design often has no possible insight on. Client specifies design is the only option which works in all of these instances, and yes, this means that the more complex your site / SPA (o hai ubrz) the more likely it will be to break irreparably in a large number of instances.
Nope!
A CSS pixel is 96 DPI at 28 inches from the viewer.
px is fundamentally angle-based. 1/47 of a degree. And sure it's a "scaled value of cm" at some point but this way the scaling is more obviously handled on a per-device basis.
Nobody who knows their salt has been using breakpoints (as a first resort for the past decade). There is no point arguing with a predictive text model about it.
Though, @container breakpoints are at least justifiable. Back when people keyed everything off viewport width (the approach that I'm sure the computer was regurgitating – and the approach used by every version of Bootstrap since 2), things were very fragile.
HN also does what's described at the end using media queries - if you make the page small your topbar fills the entire top and changes element layout while the post content area fills the entire rest of the screen.
The more subtle things you describe seem quite sensible. I'll probably steal those ideas, if it comes up.
I think about it as building different sites for different form factor. What you do on a phone is different from what you do on a desktop. Or a tablet. I don't like using the amazon website on mobile because it's so cluttered, when what I want is usually searching for a product, or checking my cart for a product. I'm not managing my account in there, nor do I want alternative recommendations.
I should subscribe to some "new web features you can actually use now" newsletter. Any ideas?