I don’t know how many websites disable pinch2zoom, but I have had a few websites that disable it when I need to use it that is incredibly frustrating. The ideal of “you should never have to do this” is still somewhat an ideal, I think. Things just aren’t standardized enough, IME.
Also note that you can still prevent the user from zooming out past 100%, just can’t disable zooming in. I think this is the ideal scenario.
Still need to zoom images on mobile if you want to see any details.
My eyesight isn’t great, so I use the zoom/voiceover features, and I can’t express how frustrated it makes me to visit a website that breaks these things (which are actually quite good otherwise), but believe that it’s nothing compared to how I feel when some designer says crap like this. It’s not accessible because I can’t access it. Everything past that point is irrelevant.
[Comment removed by author]
Accessibility features are not there for you to disable for artistic purity, which is what it sounds like your entire argument boils down to.
Just because there are ways to deal with it outside of the OS which would let you control the entire experience doesn’t mean you should. Even if you can bump up the text size, you should still let people pinch/zoom because there’s an expectation that it will work.
People expect things to work a certain way, they’re trained to expect it. If stop it form working, you’ve done the wrong thing.
Except in this case you’re not arguing a fact, you’re saying “all users are obviously wrong for wanting this accessibility feature”. This isn’t about fact, it’s about opinion, and yours appears to be “I’m smarter than everyone else using a computer, and they should accept that and do thing the way I want them to instead of the way their devices are designed to do by default”.
It baffles me that all the feedback you’ve received, here, on StackOverflow, and some on Reddit, says “let users pinch to zoom” and yet the only thing you can do is try to poke holes into everyone else telling you that.
Your “facts” come off as incredibly arrogant. It’s never safe to assume that you can anticipate people’s accessibility needs or the reasons for them. OS-level accessibility features are the product of decades of iteration between developers and the community, and still they are often inadequate, but they are the best mechanism extant today. Please don’t subvert them.
The issue that zooming solves is not unreadable text. (There are an infinite number of ways to make text illegible that zooming does not solve, and web developers are madly in love with most of them.) It’s content size, and you, as the designer, cannot know the appropriate content size ahead of time. It’s not constant in terms of pixels, linear distance, angular distance, or even on a single device over time. Thus, it must be left up to the user.
The bigger issue, and the reason you’re getting such vitriol, is that it’s my goddamn client and I control how it works. You don’t, you shouldn’t, and trying to work around this fact pits you against every user and puts you in good company with hackers and movie executives in trying to control users' systems against their will. Furthermore, the more designers abuse the capabilities clients grant them, the more those capabilities must be restricted to ensure a reasonable user experience, thus exacerbating the problem.
The end state of all this is black monospace ASCII on a white field with no formatting possible, and you will deserve it when we get there.
So you mean to say people want pinch2zoom so that they can go to mobile websites and pinch a webpage? That’s just plain wrong. […] People almost never want a feature unless they can show it off to their friends. Especially, not from a content website. People only want to read the content as fast as they can and move on without being hassled.
Have you actually talked to people with bad eyesight about your proposal? The people I know would definitely disagree with you.
On a side note, you can format quotes by preceding them with a greater-than character, like so. ;)
> Quote from someone else's post
Also, highlighting the part of the reply that you want to reference, and then clicking reply does this automatically.
I’m a little distressed that someone who has been a long-time contributor here wound up leaving the site over this…
But, sigh. I don’t think anyone was out of line; everyone seemed admirably restrained, given the disconnect in viewpoints.
I guess I just wanted to say that in order to process it. I have no idea whether others worry about that sort of thing. :)
This Reddit comment may be instructive.
I dunno, it feels like a massive overreaction to simply being told one is wrong.
Also, lobste.rs being described as a “community of hotheads” is just… weird. Like, what are we being compared to? IMO, this community is very coolheaded, which is one of the things I appreciate about it.
Thanks. That makes me feel less conflicted. I agree with you - this was a difference of opinion, not a personal fight, and everyone (else) was very level about it. Oh well. I choose to focus on the final sentence of that rather than on the inflammatory part:
So it is and so be it. No offense taken. And wishing everyone the best, and onwards on our separate paths. :-)
“and then went on to actively remove my thoughts”
Huh? They deleted all their own comments didn’t they?
Yes. I hope they were referring to downvotes and not trying to build a false narrative about censorship, but of course if the latter was intended that’s exactly why we have transparency features.
If someone deactivates their account, does Lobste.rs automatically delete all their comments? I looked through https://lobste.rs/u/ and couldn’t find a counterexample to this idea.
Stories seem to persist, but comments get deleted.
I want this on when a user is banned, because they are probably posting garbage that I don’t want to keep around. It could be an option when a user chooses to deletes their own account, though I don’t know why someone would leave and want to keep all their comment history around, especially if they just ragequit in the middle of a thread (like this one).
So User#delete! probably needs an arg like delete_comments which User#ban_by_user_for_reason! passes in as true, and the account deletion form on the settings page needs a checkbox, which SettingsController should pass through when it calls @user.delete!.
Irene, accounts do seem to automatically delete all the user’s comments after the account is disabled. Should we consider this a bug?
I had posted a comment with that account, but it vanished after I deleted the account.
Thanks for testing that. I see that jcs has replied in parallel. I agree that this is not a horrible default but should be optional.
Bizarre choice of link submission, your own reddit comment? Anyway, there is a positive case to be made that “accessibility ought to come first,” but the answer to the SO question really sums it up for me:
In all seriousness, don’t do this. You don’t know better than the people who are actually consuming your content how they should best consume your content.
And on a personal note, a very quick way to get me to never, ever visit your website again is to override or disable browser-default behaviors like pinch2zoom or scroll.
When a website disables pinch2zoom, I immediately tell Safari to load up the desktop version and use that instead. Pinch2zoom works there.
Maybe if I had a 6" monster phone that didn’t fit in my hand the mobile website would be more usable without pinch2zoom. But in a world where not all mobile devices are identical, not all users are identical, and not all eyes are identical, I think we still need pinch2zoom.
Perhaps most frustrating is that pinch2zoom is part of the “normal way” I navigate websites – like scrolling or clicking on links. I reflexively use it as part of my normal browsing habits, and I am not going to unlearn it just for your website (I couldn’t, even if I wanted to – not in 5 minutes, or even 5 hours). Disabling it feels like the website is no longer working properly, like if a website disables scrolling.
Maybe if I had a 6" monster phone that didn’t fit in my hand the mobile website would be more usable without pinch2zoom.
I don’t find the big screen helps legibility for me as much as it helps endurance. I get tired of using the big phone a lot slower, but the same unusable websites are still unusable.
I’m not really seeing a justification there beyond someone vehemently saying that they don’t want it. As someone who both reads and makes web pages, I’m all for features that limit the ability of web developers to make their sites unusable.
Sorry, no. Mobile screens are small, and I want to be able to zoom into pictures, zoom into smaller text and show it to people standing an arms length away, and generally be able to change the size of what I’m seeing. I use this heavily on the desktop already, especially when showing colleagues and friends things over my shoulder (or when some designer with better eyesight than me makes font choices). I use it even more heavily on mobile.
It’s shit like this that makes me reach for the ‘show desktop site’ regularly on mobile. These misguided attempts at making mobile web sites usable make it even worse than desktop sites.