The Two Types of Browser Zoom

From the dawn of the web – at least since Netscape Navigator 4.x – it has been possible to resize the text on a web page. This is typically done through the View menu.

netscape 4.x View, Font menu

This was fine in the early, primitive days of the web, when page layouts were simple and unsophisticated. Want the font to be three times larger? No problem! Pump it up until your eyes bleed; you're unlikely to break the design, because there's precious little design at all.

yahoo-homepage-circa-1998.png

But this was a time long before the web had become a platform for full-blown applications, with complex, dense, almost GUI-like designs.

The accepted web design guidance is that you should generally produce web page layouts that work at:

  1. the default font size (obviously)
  2. one size below the default font size
  3. one size above the default font size

I agree, and you should be testing for this on your own websites. The handy keyboard equivalents in most browsers are:

Ctrl + 0   Reset font size to default

Ctrl + +   Make font one size larger

Ctrl + -   Make font one size smaller

(yes, holding down the Ctrl key and then scrolling your mouse scroll wheel works, too, but no real programmer would use that.)

It is important to let the user control their browsing experience. But I think that the traditional method of font-only browser sizing is a solution whose time has come and gone. There's a better way. Opera was the first browser to introduce full page zoom as an alternative to traditional font sizing, but Firefox 3 is where most people actually experience it. In fact, in Firefox 3, it's the default page sizing mode.

Firefox 3 View, Zoom menu

Note that "Zoom Text Only" is unchecked. And for good reason. Compare for yourself. Here's the Digg homepage using old-school Netscape 4.x style font scaling.

Browser Font Scaling: Default

digg-text-zoom-default-thumb.png

Browser Font Scaling: Size +1

digg-text-zoom-plus-1-thumb.png

Browser Font Scaling: Size +2

digg-text-zoom-plus-2-thumb.png

Digg follows the design rule of thumb I suggested above: it scales to font size +1, but beyond that, all bets are off. With the fonts at +2, the top menu is scrunched, the search box clipped, and the digg numbers are spilling out over the boxes. The "most recent" navigation element has completely disappeared! Now compare this with the newer method of full page zooming:

Browser Full Page Zoom Scaling: Default

digg-page-zoom-default-thumb-256.png

Browser Full Page Zoom Scaling: Size +1

digg-page-zoom-plus-1-thumb-256.png

Browser Full Page Zoom Scaling: Size +2

digg-page-zoom-plus-2-thumb-256.png

While the page does get wider, the full page zoom method has tremendous advantages:

  1. Full page zoom works on almost every web page in the world, with no changes whatsoever by the web designers
  2. Full page zoom scales far, far beyond the +1/-1 sizes that you can reasonably expect from traditional browser font sizing approaches.

To prove that full page zoom scales like nobody's business, here's a screenshot I captured of the Digg homepage scaled to fit the entire width of my 1920 x 1080 monitor. In comparison, increasing the fonts beyond +2 results in a jumbled, unreadable mess.

Honestly, I can't see much use for traditional browser font sizing. It's increasingly fragile on today's web. I wish more browsers would take the lead from Firefox 3, and adopt full page zoom as the new default page sizing method.

Related posts

An Exercise Program for the Fat Web

An Exercise Program for the Fat Web

When I wrote about App-pocalypse Now in 2014, I implied the future still belonged to the web. And it does. But it’s also true that the web has changed a lot in the last 10 years, much less the last 20 or 30. Websites have gotten a lot… fatter.

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments

Web Discussions: Flat by Design

It's been six years since I wrote Discussions: Flat or Threaded? and, despite a bunch of evolution on the web since then, my opinion on this has not fundamentally changed. If anything, my opinion has strengthened based on the observed data: precious few threaded discussion models survive on

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments

Lived Fast, Died Young, Left a Tired Corpse

It's easy to forget just how crazy things got during the Web 1.0 bubble in 2000. That was over ten years ago. For context, Mark Zuckerberg [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg] was all of sixteen when the original web bubble popped. [http://finance.yahoo.com/

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments

Smart Enough Not To Build This Website

I may not be smart enough to join Mensa [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International], but I am smart enough not to build websites like the American Mensa website. [https://www.us.mensa.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Calendar&Template=Security/NoPassword.cfm] Do you see the mistake?

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments

Recent Posts

Stay Gold, America

Stay Gold, America

We are at an unprecedented point in American history, and I'm concerned we may lose sight of the American Dream.

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments
The Great Filter Comes For Us All

The Great Filter Comes For Us All

With a 13 billion year head start on evolution, why haven’t any other forms of life in the universe contacted us by now? (Arrival is a fantastic movie. Watch it, but don’t stop there – read the Story of Your Life novella it was based on for so much

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments
I Fight For The Users

I Fight For The Users

If you haven’t been able to keep up with my blistering pace of one blog post per year, I don’t blame you. There’s a lot going on right now. It’s a busy time. But let’s pause and take a moment to celebrate that Elon Musk

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments
The 2030 Self-Driving Car Bet

The 2030 Self-Driving Car Bet

It’s my honor to announce that John Carmack and I have initiated a friendly bet of $10,000* to the 501(c)(3) charity of the winner’s choice: By January 1st, 2030, completely autonomous self-driving cars meeting SAE J3016 level 5 will be commercially available for passenger use

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments