> One million seconds takes 11 days. One billion seconds takes 32 years.

Muh lawnmower broke D:

You unhurt?

@bertieb clearly you are incompatible with devices that are mechanical in any capacity.

@JourneymanGeek Yes thank you!

@rahuldottech In my defence this Flymo is ancient

Not as ancient as Bob's old lawnmower

But it's a hand-me-down

the fly plate broke

can probably order a new one

though I was looking at cordless mowers recently

and robot/automated ones

Still quite pricey tho

So it's a crash land plate?

Heh, pretty much :P

@bertieb wha?

@Bob I thought you had an old petrol mower

Or is crazy old Maurice bertieb creating false memories again?

@bertieb I do, I just don't remember ever talking about it here :P

Great. Now we need to randomly refer to you as Maurice ;p

*looks at bertie suspiciously*

This is like one of those wierd sitcoms where everyone lives in the same building isn't it ;p

Oh! Maybe Matrix? I get these two mixed up

well, where things have been said

sometimes

This has been really annoying me

Responsive websites suck when it comes to images and zooming in

I'm so frustrated at this point that I made a playlist showing several popular websites which have this problem:

Affects the entire SE network, Reddit, Twitter, Google Drive, WhatsApp Web, etc.

Notice that the image doesn't become bigger as the user zooms in

Or it gets bigger to a point, and if you zoom in further, it starts getting smaller

It's frankly ridiculous, and makes it hard for people who don't have perfect vision to use websites.

@rahuldottech eh, Arn't responsive sites meant to work well at different resolutions and not...dynamically changing resolutions. Also, is this a browser or a web design issue I wonder....

@JourneymanGeek I don't care what they're supposed to do if I can't even zoom in to see a bigger image. That's like UX 101.

"I don't care" - the first step to solving a problem is understanding it

@JourneymanGeek No, I understand the problem very well

@rahuldottech well, part of it

where's the problem - is responsive design meant for dynamic resizes or to support a range of devices on one design?

Are web browsers handling this badly or the sites?

etc

your website won't know what your zoom level is would it (correct me smarter people!)?

They want to make websites work at all resolutions. When any browser zooms in, the "resolution" changes. Website adapts to new resolution. Website doesn't get that it's the same browser trying to see a larger image. Hence, images don't get bigger.

Isn't that what you're trying to say?

And the browser should be doing the rescaling

But the thing is, all text on the website does get bigger as I zoom in. It's just that the images don't.

cause the content served shouldn't differ with user agent or resolution (which your website dosen't know)

So feels like its a browser issue

I can reproduce this in Chrome, Firefox and Edge.

So, they're all doing it differently correctly wrong?

@JourneymanGeek content served is the same, I think. It's just that whatever library they're using for the responsiveness messes it up.

@rahuldottech or the browsers are...

@JourneymanGeek I'd say so, unless the user being unable to see a larger image is "correct"

@JourneymanGeek if the library doesn't work as expected in any browser, I'm pretty use it's that library that's at fault.

@rahuldottech or its a usercase that wasn't taken into account

@JourneymanGeek seems like a huge oversight to me, but clearly that was the case here.

So a good question might be...

why was it done like that?

Websites apparently assume that all users have perfect vision and never have any reason to zoom in

@JourneymanGeek Because assumptions and no proper UX testing? ^

citation needed ;p

It's a guess. I have no idea.

I suspect @Bob might have better insights?

Isn't there a CSS selector for zoom level?

The worst offenders are the website that don't enlarge text as you zoom in

they can GDIAF

I have been summoned

Don't you have a petrol lawnmower?

Ok, so. I think the image thing is, to some extent, on you and the browser. Not something site devs should be concerned about.

Wait, wrong summoning

The alternative is that the browser does a purely raster zoom ... which gives you horizontal scrolling.

I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of people who zoom their browser don't expect horizontal scrolling to happen...

There's a few solutions if you want to zoom an image. All of which are at the user end.

1. Open the image in a new tab. Which makes sense for a website that allows user-submitted images, anyway. This is why the image upload form automatically linkifies the image to do that.

I do that all the time to view at original image resolution.

2. Install an extension that displays an image at original res, via overlay.

The only thing a site like this can do is display an image in a lightbox on click. Which I personally hate - it's always clunky to use. Some forums do this.

Much easier to just open in a separate tab.

@bertieb you really need to get rid of that summoning circle of lawnmover parts and a cookie.

@Bob I've seen websites that disable that. As in, right-click on image doesn't give you the image options

@JourneymanGeek Mmmmmm, cooooooookie

No, the painkillers aren't having any effect on my cognition. Why do you ask?

@rahuldottech Eh. That's not what SE does, anyway.

But before they added the automatic linkification, I'd link my images in my answers.

And I made a thing

Which was sparked by this q meta.stackexchange.com/questions/242220/…

which eventually led to the auto linkification

@Bob hm. That's okay for the occasional image, yeah. But what if I'm browsing Reddit at 150%? The text is bigger and that's okay, but opening each image in a new tab is a hassle.

Though I'm not sure I notice if anyone inserts an image without the link, because my script fixes them up for me anyway :D

@rahuldottech That's another site where it's a non-issue for me because I use RES which supports image resizing by drag.

But there's no general good solution for user content.

You can't assume anything about image dimensions.

@bertieb Sure Maurice.

Also, this issue? Isn't specific to just images. Also affects embedded videos, which you often can't open in new tabs unless it's just good ol' <video>

Better to fit to a reasonable width rather than always use original res and have the 12MP pixel cause horizontal scrolling.

Fun fact. A 12MP image is 4000 pixels wide.

@JourneymanGeek If I didn't have a thing against changing avatar, I'd change mine to Maurice, but... that's a long way to go for a one-shot joke ;-P

That's twice as wide as your average monitor.

Not to mention 3000 pixels high. At original res that'd cover 6x the size of your average monitor.

Not good.

@rahuldottech Videos can almost always be fullscreened.

I mean. You're complaining about images not scaling with zoom. But how can they scale?

Text is "easy". It can just overflow to the next line.

@Bob hmm. Idk what to say? I still feel that to the regular non-geek user, zooming in shouldn't require scripts and extensions, but dunno, since you're saying that's hard to do...

@rahuldottech Let me know when you figure out a way to do it without murdering user experience.

You either scale images or not.

@Bob honestly, I know I'm the exception, but I'd be perfectly happy if these was a way to enable "true" zoom with horizontal scroll on desktop, sorta like how it works on mobile.

If you scale it, it won't scale up with zoom - unless browsers implement zooming by raster zoom, and act like Windows Magnifier (i.e. horizontal scrolling).

If you don't scale it ... your image sizes are all over the place, and given typical phone camera resolutions, probably 90% of them will be anywhere from 5x to 20x bigger than the average monitor.

(also, f*ck websites that set viewport to be unzoomable)

@rahuldottech Then make that suggestion to your browser.

That's a browser issue, not a site issue.

@Bob I will, yeah. I'm just surprised that's not an option by default.

@rahuldottech It probably falls under "hard".

@Bob I get it. Just discussing. Thanks for your inputs.

They may tell you to just use your OS's accessibility tools instead.

@Bob but that's basically how it always worked before responsiveness was a thing ;p

And still does, on websites that don't use responsive design libraries.

@rahuldottech I don't think this has much to do with responsiveness, strictly speaking.

If it happened at all, it'd be because images didn't have a max size specified (usually if not UGC), or it was relative to a static outer container size.

In which case it may have worked before by pure luck.

@Bob I just figured that it did because images only didn't get bigger for me on websites that are "responsive", but you're probably right.

@rahuldottech Hm. I take that back, some testing (and a bit more thinking) and a CSS pixel scaling zoom should also scale the max size values.

Hmmmmmmm.

Oh.

It's still kinda the same thing, except responsiveness did make it a bit worse in one way: as you zoom up, as text sizes increase and reflow ... on SU specifically, the image is getting shoved into a smaller container because one of the outer containers resized.

Hmmm.

@rahuldottech The other bit is responsiveness has been a stronger move away from "design for X screen size and let smaller sizes scroll horizontally"

The "let smaller sizes scroll horizontally" would've, by coincidence, caught your zoom case too.

But yea. The solution would be for the browser to present a larger viewport to the page and scroll horizontally in the UI.

Could maybe be done with a script/webext?

By setting body width to some larger num

@rahuldottech You might find these useful? addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/…, addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/imagus

@bertieb actually it's probably funnier if people randomly just called you that with no context

@JourneymanGeek Hehe, true... though I think you mean @Maurice ;-P

Sure @maurice

Who?!

;-P

@Bob I'll check them out, thanks!

@rahuldottech yes this is annoying.

wait, we don't want horizontal scrolling why?

if it only occurs when we decide to zoom in, what's the problem exactly?

basically, i want 'zoom' to shrink my viewport, keeping the text the same size but showing me less of it.

Not in fact do what they do, which is try and scale up text, (and not images).

So, disable responsiveness?

Not trying to be cheeky, just that sounds like what you're trying to do

well no

i think the way browsers implement zoom is broken

but it's broken due to 'responsive' code, doing the 'right' thing

So, kinda yes? I mean if there was no responsiveness it would do what you wanted is what I'm getting at

yes. it would

Basically I think we're getting at the same thing

Gotcha

Time for more painkillers

it'd technically increase the size of both the fontface, and the images

Aye

because you're technically viewing the site at a smaller res.

and the site doesn't draw smaller, to compensate.

but, changing res to implement zoom, sounds dumb to me

and it causes this problem

O/T, but Google has changed their search results appearance and it's different and shakes cane again

@bertieb how can you do that?

Because that would solve all my problems

@rahuldottech Not sure, I was wondering more in the conceptual sense

Probably by falling back to an ancient browser that didn't support the relevant CSS

or compiling one without that support

maybe a userscript could do it

by overriding everything with fixed dimensions !important;

I suspect whatver method you choose things will break in interesting and exciting ways

Agh

I can't get vim to paste

Oh well, guess I'll install gvim, as Arch's vim is compiled sans -clipboard

@bertieb whenever I'm working with GNU/Linux (mostly when I'm using college PCs), I just use nano. It works well enough for writing basic C++ programs.

@rahuldottech Nano's fine for small changes to things

But vim is amazing, once you get your head around it

when I said I couldn't get it to paste, that was short for "I can't get vim to insert the X11/primary clipboard (selected via mouse) contents at the end of this mapping I'm writing"

Using vim has sped me up immensely, and my vim-fu is pretty weak

A true wizard would probably be much faster than me at doing things

I don't think terminal-based editors are my thing. The only reason I even use nano is because I can't find a portable build of Geany for Ubuntu, and I don't have admin privs in college.

I tried vim once, but it's not the kinda thing that you can use just outta the box, and seeing as I only use the college PCs for a couple hours a week, it's not worth the effort

And I don't like the default text editor that ships with Ubuntu

@djsmiley2k because it can't occur only when you zoom in, from the site's perspective

it'd need to be the browser changing how it implements zoom

and there's good reason for either type of zoom

@rahuldottech I also bounced off vim pretty hard when I first tried it

So I get where you're coming from

@rahuldottech vim is great for quick edits or for doing stuff on machines you don't control

I really recommend spending some effort to learn the bascs

@Ave I'll get around to it eventually, yeah. But I already have a lot on my todo list, and nano works fine for now.

just learn how to get into insert mode, exit it, save files, save and exit, exit without saving

@Ave Again, if I'm only going to be doing that much, nano is fine.

also how to select thing (v) or select by line (V), how to copy (y), how to cut (d), how to paste (p)

delete line (dd, put number before it to do more than that)

Hmm. In a few weeks, mayyybe

how to do regex searches (/[regex], press n to go to next one, for reverse press N)

that's pretty much all I use in vim

other than :set paste, :set nopaste and :set mouse=a

@Ave huh, I've always used / for next and ? for prev

(and [number]% to jump to a percentage of line in file)

@Bob yeah that works too for starting that way

but say that you started searching and went one too far and now want to go back

but yeah it's interesting how little vim I know

yet how much even the little I know helps me

> Commands in vi/vim are meant to be combined - 'd' means delete, 'e' means 'move to end of word', then 'de' is a complete command that deletes to the end of the current word (something like Ctrl-Shift-Right, Left, Del in most regular editors).

oooh

viemu.com/a-why-vi-vim.html

Yes!

The power is in doing things n times, or operating on blocks (words, lines, paragraphs, code blocks), mappings specific to the mode you're in, mappings specific to file types

There are some quite nifty plugins that I tarted using recently too

And the plugin managers make using plugins dead simple

@Ave yea ? by itself goes back one

/ by itself goes forward one

both using the last search term

I spent a little while trying to turn vim into a code editor

then vscode came along and I dropped vim the next day :D

well, it's still useful over ssh

@Bob so in latest FF, open this and zoom in ^

text overflows, image becomes bigger

I wish all websites worked this way

I know web design becomes a lot more complicated when libraries and all come into play

I'm just fantasizing here.

++ that

maybe it should be a browser zxoom option

Does anybody here have a Win 10 Pro installed on a laptop/desktop, and no other OS installed?

If so, can you check msconfig, and then the 'boot' tab, and tell me if it says Windows 10, or if it says Windows 10 Pro ?

(for the one OS entry there.

@barlop Just Windows 10

@MichaelFrank you mean you have Windows 10 Pro installed but it shows up in msconfig as just Windows 10?

Yea

Thanks

ditto