upvote
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"> is the only thing keeping this page from being mobile friendly.

Having that not be the browser default was a good idea in 2008, but not now.

reply
It wasn't a good idea even in 2008.
reply
I don't have a smartphone to test on. What happens without this?
reply
You essentially see the desktop version zoomed out by default with tiny text. You need to zoom in, but the line length is still desktop sized so you need to scroll left and right as well as up and down to read it.
reply
In this pages case, I disagree. I feel like when pages try to force their 'aspect ratio / styling' to fit the view port I have to fight more with it. at least as it stands I can zoom as needed on this page, I can appreciate the web devs 'vision' as in how it probably appeared on their machine. I honestly hate mobile sites unless they are done just super super well which is harder than expected. https://rockauto.com is one such site that I think works really well on mobile.
reply
A page like this, with minimal styling, the whole point is the author does not care, the author expects the user's agent to style the document optimally for it's dimensions., the optimal in responsive design. this was the original vision for the web, the agent supplies most of the style.

Except it does not, for some weird reason unstyled pages like this which should look great on mobile look like ass. Why are mobile browsers defaults so wrong?

This hits hard because this is how I build my pages (you can probably tell I am not a front end designer) I just want to put well structured content out and let the users agent display it in the manner that suits the user best. And it mostly works, it will not win any awards but it looks fine. Until someone asks why it looks like the dog's breakfast on mobile.

reply
> not mobile friendly.

It’s not what I’d call mobile unfriendly either.

I had to zoom in slightly but then it’s perfectly readable in landscape.

Some very basic inline responsive CSS would make it work great in portrait too.

But the thing is, with no ads, complex layout, or other bullshit, it’s perfectly usable on mobile as is.

I’d certainly take this over any website from any major media outlet, other than those that are publicly funded like the BBC (and, even then, only in the UK because they show ads everywhere else).

reply
It's obviously not designed for mobile but I wouldn't call it unfriendly, it's still fast and pretty easy to read. It also works perfectly with Firefox reader mode.
reply
I read it on a mobile device and found it perfectly legible. I like small text though.
reply
This sounds like a critique of mobile browsers. Make friendliness the default!
reply
Firefox's reader mode works really well on the article, I wonder why it's not the default for unstyled pages.
reply
I kinda think it's more mobile friendly than desktop friendly (although it isn't great on either.)

It's sorta hard to read text that spans the whole screen and at least on mobile, that's not nearly as wide.

reply
What part of this is actually not mobile friendly? I’d argue this is laid out pretty well compared to some websites that are “mobile friendly” but load poorly or make it impossible to scroll.
reply
If you need to scroll the viewport left and right to read a line of text, that seems kind of unfriendly.
reply
> The main drawback with the page's unstyled design is that the page is not mobile friendly.

Then fix mobile browsers to display it correctly.

reply
I used reading mode on Safari and it was perfect for reading.
reply
That's a feature for me, not a bug. Not everything has to be everything-friendly all the time, especially if it makes it easier to consume content or stuff.

Edit: I'm forgetting about certain accessibility issues, although I'm not sure this plain page isn't a good fit for accessibility tools.

reply