-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
clarify minimum-scale expansion for ICB vs. layout viewport #19
Labels
Comments
Oops my "clearer statement" is also wrong.
^ this is only true when the meta viewport has |
Closed
I made a draft of a doc that tries to explain all of this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FoAGu2grMAnUDgEfLAvALsdDTekstpxb-eeGUhCYTUk/edit I'll try to make some PRs to update the explainers in this repo. |
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The ICB explainer currently suggests that the ICB matches the size of the layout viewport, modulo UA UI shrinkage. That's not really correct, at least for mobile Chrome it is easy to reproduce a layout viewport much larger than the ICB:
https://output.jsbin.com/meyexut/quiet
A clearer statement would be:
The minimum pinch-zoom scale is influenced by two things:
minimum-scale
parameter in the meta viewport tagThe
minimum-scale
default is really small and it's pretty common to have horizontal overflow from fixed-width elements, so you actually see LV >> ICB frequently on the web.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: