On 2016-09-06 06:21:18 +0300, Alexander Gromnitsky wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 06:04:59PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 05:09:46AM +0300, Alexander Gromnitsky wrote:
> >> -body { margin-left:2%; margin-right:2%; font-family:serif; }
> >> +@media (min-width: 768px) {
> >> + body { width: 767px; margin: 0 auto; }
> >> +}
> >> +body { font-family:serif; }
> >> .toc, .list-of-tables, .list-of-examples { font-family:sans-serif; }
> >> h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { font-family:sans-serif; }
> >> p { text-align:justify; }
>
> > I'm not well-versed on CSS issues--what is the effect of this change
> > (and the several related changes) on small screens, say a cell phone
> > screen held in portrait orientation?
>
> Quite a crappy one, for, for example, in many Android phones the
> hard-wired default viewport is ~980px.
Unfortunately px is underspecified. That's probably why it should be
better to be relative to em as already suggested. This is what I do
for my web site. I never use px except for small lengths such as
those used for borders.
> Perhaps it would be beneficial to add
>
> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1" />
>
> to `mutt.xsl` to ask a browser to use an "ideal" viewport of the
> device.
But then, it seems that you may have problems with iOS devices,
for which device-width is always 768px according to
http://www.alsacreations.com/article/lire/1490-comprendre-le-viewport-dans-le-web-mobile.html
(French article).
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
