Fremantle and "Fit Width to View" [Archive] - maemo.org

lm2

04-16-2009, 01:11 PM

Qui-Gon told me to stay in this cockpit, and that's what I'm going to do!
--Anakin Skywaker (http://www.quotes.net/mquote/91149)

Quim-Gil told me (http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=280074#post280074) to go start a new thread, and that's what I'm going to do!
--lm2

Over in this (http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27272)unrelated thread, it was announced that "Fit Width to View will not be present in Fremantle." (https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152#c5).

It is my opinion that unless this feature of the stock browser is replaced by some similar functionality (e.g., tear has default word-wrapping for text heavy pages), then this is a lamentable development.

Obviously I understand why people wouldn't want to have FWTV as the default option, but for those of us who use our tablet largely to read blogs posts and news (not a small contingent, I wouldn't think), the lack of FWTV would seem to force one to choose between horizontal scrolling one's life away or else keeping font so small that reading text strains one's eyes. This is the choice that those with iTouches and iPhones must make. It's great that I don't have to make this choice with my n8x0.

Yes, I can always wait for Tear to be ported to Maemo 5. But I'm sure that there are going to be things that I like about the new browser (there are things I like about microb). So I'll just register my hope that the fremantle development team will reconsider. For the record, I simply want to be able to avoid horizontal scrolling when I make font big enough to read comfortably. If there is some way other than FWTV to do that on the new browser, then great.

(Also, while I'm at it, I'll note that many of us choose to modify the key bindings on microb so that the d-pad scrolls page-by-page instead of line-by-line. I'm fine with doing this via xterm/cli, but a toggle box in a settings panel would be great as well!)

Jeffgrado

04-16-2009, 01:19 PM

Perhaps a simple way would to have the browser automatically fit width to view when zooming. Once back at 100%, it would resume the sites default view. That's if there are hardware keys for zooming. If there is no stylus on the next tablet, then the browsers display will probably be viewed differently anyway.

yerga

04-16-2009, 03:49 PM

sondjata

04-16-2009, 03:55 PM

lm2

04-16-2009, 04:07 PM

As I said, "Obviously I understand why people wouldn't want to have FWTV as the default option." But you can't seriously be so paternalistic that you'd rather eliminate it all together over making non-FWTV the default or putting FWTV deep in the menus? After all, you *know* there are some of us who have good reasons for wanting some sort of FWTV functionality.

Seriously, what's the big deal if FWTV remains an option, located exactly where it is, just like having a webpage zoomed in to 300% is an option? Obviously it would be silly to have 300% zoom be the default, but it's not silly for it to be an option.

If one is worried about end users, one could have a dialogue that pops up the first time someone selects FWTV warning them that it might make the browser run slower on complex webpages. One could add a "Don't show this message again" toggle box so people can choose to be warned each time it's selected.

I just don't get this dismissive attitude toward an option that it's obvious some people appreciate.

lm2

04-16-2009, 04:12 PM

I've never used the feature. I have a blog with long form posts and never had a problem. If a page is wide, it is usually because of adverts on the side which can be safely ignored by centering the content.

If it's really a problem then I think the page itself is badly coded.

Badly coded or not, without this feature this page (http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;jsessionid=9EB2B40DC8FD6F51A11FD7F20A4AAE1 6.w6?a=355854&f=19) would require incessant horizontal scrolling in microb when zoomed to 180%. Are you really prepared to condemn those of us whose eyes need 180% to horizontal scrolling? Sheesh.

Perhaps you suggest that nokia replace FWTV with a CTTPC (complain to this page's coder) option.

qgil

04-16-2009, 04:22 PM

lm2

04-16-2009, 04:33 PM

You don't need to zoom to 180% in the first place. If you find the fonts are small then you can choose larger fonts in the browser settings. Same layout, bigger fonts. Just like your desktop browser does.

Sorry, are you saying I can do that now? I don't see the setting. Or is this something that is coming in Fremantle?

If it's something I can do now, please tell me how. If it's easy to do and works, I'm happy. Again, all I want is to easily avoid horizontal scrolling. That said, I don't want the (burdensome) equivalent of changing a user agent every time I need to switch from non-FWTV to FWTV.

I still don't see how making FWTV available as an option is any more unhospitable to the "end user" than making 300% zoom an option. But whatever, I've expressed my opinion.

YoDude

04-16-2009, 04:34 PM

More information here:

Fit Width To View makes sites such as NYtimes.com unviewable (https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2888)
Fit Width To View should carry a health warning on browser startup (https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152)

Specially I like this message from vbrilon:

If end users using this 'feature' has these problems, surely they will think: "the Maemo browser sucks".
I, for one, prefer this 'feature' out or at least not available in the UI.

Yup... I was going to say. I have had nothing but problems with FTV. It may work well with a particular site but doesn't play nice with others and if I was away from the tablet for awhile, I often would forget it was enabled.

Have you tried installing and then scripting UserContent.css Im2 ? For me it's the only way to fly.

I modify the font size and image properties for just about every site I visit often. >> http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24752

When the sites font size is changed this way words wrap automatically. :)

qgil

04-16-2009, 04:40 PM

Sorry, are you saying I can do that now? I don't see the setting. Or is this something that is coming in Fremantle?

You asked about the Fremantle browser and I answered about the Fremantle browser. :)

lm2

04-16-2009, 04:45 PM

Have you tried installing and then scripting UserContent.css Im2 ? For me it's the only way to fly.

Yup, I've got a userContent.css file. But the irony is that so many of the complaints about FWTV have the so-called "end user's" unwitting interests at heart. But some end-users need bigger font to read, and all of these end users will certainly hate horizontal scrolling. Obviously it is out of step with this concern for their plight for you to suggest they learn about userContent.css.

And in my own case, the point of the web is that I can jump from this site to that in a zip. Since I never know where I'm going, I never know which sites need to be mentioned in my userContent.css file. FWTV works instantaneously.

lm2

04-16-2009, 04:48 PM

You asked about the Fremantle browser and I answered about the Fremantle browser. :)

Perhaps I'll be satisfied with this way of increasing font size without horizontal scrolling. That's all I'm after. But please do pass along my (and others') wishes for this to be as easy to do as increasing a pages zoom to 300%, or, heck, setting FWTV now. :)

khalid

04-16-2009, 04:56 PM

Justjoe

04-16-2009, 06:10 PM

I agree with Im2. Granted, FWTV is not good for every page, but those sites/ pages that can utilize it are made so much easier to read. Personally, I use it multiple times a day, every day.

As a matter of fact, on lunch I stick to those sites where FWTV works, since the print can be made large enough that it's easier to read than a newspaper, making reading the N800 while eating lunch a much more pleasant experience, (which would otherwise be impossible on some sites).

Side scrolling is just annoying as hell.

Joe

Un27Pee

04-16-2009, 06:31 PM

I have set mine on by default, without FWTV it will be miserable for me reading all that i needed to read on the Tablet. can't stand horizontal scrolling and i realy hope Fremantle comes with the ability to choose fonts for any application to the suitable readable fonts and some way to avoid the horizontal scrolling.
by the way can the font size on current tablets be increased to a larger size on all applications without using the zoom option?

TA-t3

04-17-2009, 04:37 AM

It's obvious that FWTV works badly on some sites. Why should that be an argument against FWTV? It works brilliantly on other sites. That's the whole point: Have an arsenal of options available to be flexible enough to make the best possible web experience. I turn fwtv on and off as I jump from place to place, and I zoom up and down. Without those features I would tire of the whole thing and very probably stop browsing from my N800 at all.

Changing font size has been mentioned. Ok then. But can I expect a 'one size fits all' setting for this? Doesn't look like that to me, unless I override the fonts in the original web pages. Or will I have to use a menu to increase/decrease font sizes as I jump from page to page? Would that be an improvement from combining zoom with FWTV? Maybe it would, maybe not, but I don't know enough about how this is planned for the Fremantle browser.

For the record, I currently zoom up to 300% when using FWTV for some sites. The combo makes for just the right size (well, 270% would probably be optimal for those sites but the zoom steps are too high in my opinion - the next down is 240%. There's room for improvement in the zoom function here.)

vvaz

04-17-2009, 04:58 AM

How this setting in Fremantle works - is it known from eg Konq redefinition of minimal and normal font? If so, this can really replace FWTV option, if not that means that new browser will suck for users with eyesight problems or older people.

GeraldKo

04-17-2009, 09:26 AM

Useful Programming Suggestion to Overcome Most Problems with "Fit Width to View": Have the browser, when opening, always be toggled to FWTV off.

I hope Font Size is a complete solution. If it isn't, then we need FWTV implemented again, and the above suggestion would eliminate most complaints. (Users forget they turned it on, start the browser, and don't know why some websites load miserably slowly or look all wrong.)

Frank Banul

04-17-2009, 10:03 AM

What about letting the user know that the width is being fit to view and show the progress? Then there are no mysterious delays while loading pages. And the user would not forget it's on. Or is it the case that fit width to view is done while loading? I get the feeling it's not based on my default use of fit width to view always on and the behavior of the browser.

I do have some faith that the Fremantle browser will not remove functionality.

Frank

sondjata

04-17-2009, 10:39 AM

Badly coded or not, without this feature this page (http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;jsessionid=9EB2B40DC8FD6F51A11FD7F20A4AAE1 6.w6?a=355854&f=19) would require incessant horizontal scrolling in microb when zoomed to 180%. Are you really prepared to condemn those of us whose eyes need 180% to horizontal scrolling? Sheesh.

Perhaps you suggest that nokia replace FWTV with a CTTPC (complain to this page's coder) option.

Well I'd ask why are you on the mobile page on a non-mobile browser like microb.

Second I'd ask why not use an RSS reader if you're trying to avoid the image heavy website?

I'm not arguing for the removal of fwtv, rather I'm questioning it's overall usefulness on a high rez screen. But clearly there are people who find it useful, perhaps there can be a plugin for the next version.

sondjata

04-17-2009, 10:46 AM

I just looked at this site at 300% and fit page: Got damn it's messed up!
Just looked at moblie.nytimes.com at the same res. I guess my eyesight is very good. Way too much vertical scrolling to me.

kanishou

04-17-2009, 11:39 AM

lm2

04-17-2009, 12:18 PM

The right question to ask is not "will the Fremantle browser support Fit Width to View?" but "will the Fremantle browser allow me to read web pages comfortably without excessive horizontal scrolling?".

Whether or not you will miss this option is not something you can judge before you have actually used the new browser.

Precisely why my original post said:

For the record, I simply want to be able to avoid horizontal scrolling when I make font big enough to read comfortably. If there is some way other than FWTV to do that on the new browser, then great.

But you get credit for putting it in different words. Well done! :p

Kegetys

04-17-2009, 12:36 PM

Fit to width is a great feature, but MicroB's implementation of it is pretty awful in my experience (Extremely slow and produces inconsistent/weird results). I'd rather see it improved to behave as well as Opera's than removed though.

qgil

04-17-2009, 02:10 PM

lm2

04-17-2009, 03:08 PM

Do you mind throwing some URLs to check? I can't promise anything but I might bring some feedback based on real examples.

I did give you an example (http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;jsessionid=9EB2B40DC8FD6F51A11FD7F20A4AAE1 6.w6?a=355854&f=19) (at 180% zoom).

You said that with fremantle I could just adjust the font type. I say: Great, so long as this is easy and quick to do. I of course don't change font sizes often with the current microb (or my desktop, for that matter), so I don't know if this will be as convenient to use on a webpage by webpage basis as FWTV currently is.

Well I'd ask why are you on the mobile page on a non-mobile browser like microb.

I use the mobile version of sites because they are less complex and thus load quicker. They are, incidentally, more conducive to quickly zooming and fitting width to view, thus it easier for those of us without a hawks eyes to read what's on those internets. I use mobile version of websites for the same reason I don't often use debian on the tablet: the tablet often works better when you embrace the fact that it is a mobile device (and not a workhorse with a huge monitor).

Second I'd ask why not use an RSS reader if you're trying to avoid the image heavy website?

I do use an RSS reader, but I don't always want to have to use a reader as an intermediary between me and the interwebs. If I want to read what is actually on the New York Times's website, and if I want to do so in a format that works really well with the tablet, is that so crazy?

*Let me note that the NYT is just an example, and that suggesting that one use userContent.css (as I do in some cases) is not a good suggestion for those who have no clue what that is (as I recently did not).

sondjata

04-17-2009, 03:31 PM

lm2

04-17-2009, 03:39 PM

I can respect you not wanting a thing like an RSS reader between you and the interwebs, but the RSS reader can blow up text and fir it to the window and remove the graphics, AND store the material for later reading if you access the full text through the reader. Seems that would serve the purpose better than a badly reformatted page (NY Times as an example).

I was one of the first heavy users of feedcircuit and I use it every day to download the entire washington post and la times, among many other sites that list content as feeds. Many feeds downloaded are filtered first through skweezer.net, to strip extraneous content. All html files created by feedcircuit are displayed according to rules in a userContent.css.----So I'm quite familiar with the power of RSS readers, especially feedcircuit. :)

I'm just sayin' that sometimes a guy's gotta let his hair down and dive into the intertubes, and I can't always ensure that I've got a particular site in my userContent file. That's where FWTV can be helpful.

Frank Banul

04-17-2009, 03:47 PM

Well I'd ask why are you on the mobile page on a non-mobile browser like microb.

Second I'd ask why not use an RSS reader if you're trying to avoid the image heavy website?

1) Speed, speed and speed. I'm too impatient knowing that the mobile version is faster, less cpu intensive, and less cluttered in most cases.

2) RSS readers are great except for the fact that they just contain portions of the full article in the majority of the cases I use.

Frank

TA-t3

04-18-2009, 10:09 AM

Well I'd ask why are you on the mobile page on a non-mobile browser like microb.
You weren't replying to me, but I would like to answer that one anyway.

The browser may not be "mobile", but the device certainly is. I'm frequently connected to the 'net through my mobile phone, and what matters there is to keep the amount of data transfered as low as possible. Both due to cost (even more so after I checked the accumulated bill only yesterday..) and speed. And there are other reasons too, such as the limited size of the screen. For all of those reasons I prefer to read the mobile version of slashdot.org, for example. (slashdot.org/palm/). Trying to wade through the "standard" slashdot on my N800 would be very time consuming, I wouldn't get much done that day. In addition to the other factors.

In short, there are several very good reasons for sticking to mobile versions of sites for some stuff, on this mobile device.

TA-t3

04-18-2009, 10:12 AM

Do you mind throwing some URLs to check? I can't promise anything but I might bring some feedback based on real examples.
Copied from my previous posting: http://slashdot.org/palm/
(see original posting for reasons to use that page)

mullf

04-18-2009, 10:15 AM

Over in this (http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27272)unrelated thread, it was announced that "Fit Width to View will not be present in Fremantle." (https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152#c5).

That's why they call it Fre, er, Dismantle.

mullf

04-18-2009, 10:16 AM

If end users using this 'feature' has these problems, surely they will think: "the Maemo browser sucks".
I, for one, prefer this 'feature' out or at least not available in the UI.

As I recall, it is NOT the default. You have to choose it if you want to use it.

BrentDC

04-18-2009, 09:34 PM

I have an example: I like to check scores on espn mobile (http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/index), and without FWTV and zooming, the site is unreadable. I tried custom CSS, but not even setting the font size on the body tag changes everything.

noventa98

04-18-2009, 11:49 PM

I also use FTW a lot in order to read web sites comfortably without straining my eyes. If another function will do a similar job in the next tablet and easily, than it is fine. But otherwise better keep the function and improve it. For instance: why should FTW be forced on all windows? I would rather have one browser window with and another without.

Also, what about reading vertically. If the next device will have a function that will allow to read while holding the device vertically I assume that a FTV function would be even more helpful. But maybe this won't be implemented in the next device... Which would be a pity because there are times in which one would prefer holdng the device vertically.

One more thing would be useful to know: will there be a hardware button for vertical scrolling?

Regards,
Antonio

krisse

04-26-2009, 09:53 AM

Can I just chime in here and relate my experiences with feedback from newbies...

Fit Width To View is off by default on current tablets, but newbies would switch it on when they first got their tablet, and then forget about it completely.

They then visited websites which didn't work well with FWTV, in fact some of them were downright awful (see below).

Because FWTV didn't give any warning about potentially severe distortion to sites, the newbies had no idea that FWTV was the problem. And when they came to ask for help, I didn't know it was the problem either because the same sites loaded fine on my tablet. It was only when someone else on ITT suggested FWTV as the culprit that the whole mystery was solved.

And how many newbies even bother to ask about this kind of problem? How many assume it's just an innate problem with the hardware?

The newbies often assumed the browser itself was just a piece of crap and dismissed their purchase of a tablet as a mistake. Some assumed because the tablet was made by Nokia, that this was some kind of simple java phone browser which was only intended for very simple mobile sites, and that it couldn't cope with proper websites.

Just to show how badly wrong FWTV could go, see the attachment at the end of this post. The normal site took 5 to 10 seconds to load, while the FWTV version took 30+ seconds to load (and never really loaded properly either).

IIRC this was raised in bugzilla, and the result of that discussion was a list of five possible options:

Option 1) Do absolutely nothing, let newbies think they've wasted their money on a piece of crap.

or

Option 2) If FWTV is on, have a dialogue box warn people about FWTV being on every time they start up the browser, saying that it may cause sites to be distorted and slow, and giving them the option of switching it off. That way no newbie could ever blame the general browser for problems that are specific to FWTV

or

Option 3) Bury FWTV much much further down into the menu system, so that only people who really know what they're doing are likely to access it, and have a dialogue box warning during activation saying that FWTV may make websites very distorted and slow.

or

Option 4) Remove FWTV completely

or

Option 5) Make FWTV switch off after every browsing session, so people are forced to consciously switch it on before using it. That way, if a site does go bad in FWTV the user will be much more likely to realise that FWTV is what is causing the problems. The risk there is that regular users will think the automatic switch-off is a bug.

Personally I would go for options 3 or 4.

mullf

04-26-2009, 10:53 AM

I vote for option #2. After the 5th or 10th warning, there should be an option to check "Don't show me this warning again.", because by then they've read the warning enough to remember it, and won't want have to click through it every day. Maybe pop up a reminder every 100 days, for those with short memories or in case the tablet was given to someone else.

GeraldKo

04-26-2009, 12:10 PM

#5 could also be combined with mullf's #2. Krisse's concern with #5 seems farfetched -- a regular user is not going to think it's a bug that the browser opens with FWTV unengaged. As someone who relies on FWTV a lot, I nonetheless regard it as a tool I turn on for "special" (even if rather frequent) occasions; I don't think anybody would regard it as Standard Operating Procedure and be surprised that the browser opened without it.

Actually, what's surprising to me -- since the Newbie/FWTV problem was known for a long time -- is that #2 and/or #5 wasn't implemented while maemo4 and MicroB were still under development.

(BTW, while I disagree with your conclusion, Krisse, thanks for laying out the problem and solutions so well.)

BrentDC

04-26-2009, 01:29 PM

How about option #6: improve FWTV so it doesn't break so many websites? Surely it can be done, just look at WebKit and it's seamless page reflowing.

GeneralAntilles

04-26-2009, 01:37 PM

How about option #6: improve FWTV so it doesn't break so many websites? Surely it can be done, just look at WebKit and it's seamless page reflowing.

Obviously Nokia considered that option and decided the time investment would cost more than the feature was worth.

krisse

04-26-2009, 02:15 PM

How about option #6: improve FWTV so it doesn't break so many websites? Surely it can be done, just look at WebKit and it's seamless page reflowing.

It would be quite a challenge, especially as websites continue to develop even after a browser is released. Add in stuff like Flash content to the mix and it becomes even more difficult. Webmasters might test how their site looks on various browsers in normal mode, but I doubt many consider FWTV.

BrentDC

04-26-2009, 02:45 PM

It would be quite a challenge, especially as websites continue to develop even after a browser is released. Add in stuff like Flash content to the mix and it becomes even more difficult. Webmasters might test how their site looks on various browsers in normal mode, but I doubt many consider FWTV.

This is always the (main) problem with mobile browsers: you can't expect web-developers to design webpages for your browser on your platform like you can on a desktop (like Microsoft can with Internet Explorer). You have to design your browser to work with anything web-developers will throw at it.

It is not like it is impossible and page reflowing can't be done though, and actually to the contrary most mobile web browsers offer this technology: think Opera Mini, Safari and all WebKit-based browsers.

The problem with MicroB's implementation is that not really enough thought was put into it. It seems like it tries to brute-force reflow the page; even the name suggests this "Fit Width To View". You can't expect to be able to forcefully cram a page down into a 800px wide area if it is just impossible to do so (and get good results).

It seems that MicroB lacks any sort of sense of word-wrapping e.g try opening a .txt file in MicroB and set on FWTV. Does it wrap the text? Nope.

Do the same in WebKit, and the text is word-wrapped perfectly. Successful page reflowing starts with removing extra space between objects, reflowing text (word-wrapping each text area), then shrinking images (if desired). If that doesn't result in a properly sized page, then the browser should not try to force the issue any further.

This is what the best mobile browsers do and MicroB doesn't.

All IMO, BTW. :)

GeneralAntilles

04-26-2009, 02:50 PM

It is not like it is impossible and page reflowing can't be done though, and actually to the contrary most mobile web browsers offer this technology: think Opera Mini, Safari and all WebKit-based browsers.

How many rendering engines have you developed? ;) The people who have say it's a feature that's too difficult to implement cleanly to be worth doing. What would you really rather see them do (given limited resources—with is a given) get fast, accurate rendering or waste a lot of time working on a feature that will never work well in all cases, slows down the browser and generally manages to degrade the user experience.

Sure, it can be done, but that doesn't make it wise to do so. ;) And besides, it's not the only (nor the best) way to solve the "large websites don't fit so well on small screens" dilema.

krisse

04-26-2009, 02:57 PM

Maybe we should wait to see what the next Maemo devices actually are before deciding they should have FWTV.

AFAIK no one has confirmed exactly what these new devices will be, and the word "tablet" is no longer in Nokia's vocabulary so the form factor may be very different.

BrentDC

04-26-2009, 02:58 PM

How many rendering engines have you developed? ;)

None.

The people who have say it's a feature that's too difficult to implement cleanly to be worth doing. What would you really rather see them do (given limited resources—with is a given) get fast, accurate rendering or waste a lot of time working on a feature that will never work well in all cases, slows down the browser and generally manages to degrade the user experience.

Sure, it can be done, but that doesn't make it wise to do so. ;) And besides, it's not the only (nor the best) way to solve the "large websites don't fit so well on small screens" dilema.

Well, it might be extremely difficult for the MicroB developers to implement, but this will certainly be implemented in the Gecko engine at some point if it hasn't already (or whatever they will call the Fennec engine).

Unfortunately, we are still using Alpha 1...

Additionally, it took one man just a couple weeks (if not less) to get the WebKit engine running on the tablets. And that already has many more mobile-oriented features than Gecko. Nearly all the the mobile browsers are using Webkit these days, there must be a reason...

GeneralAntilles

04-26-2009, 03:18 PM

Additionally, it took one man just a couple weeks (if not less) to get the WebKit engine running on the tablets. And that already has many more mobile-oriented features than Gecko. Nearly all the the mobile browsers are using Webkit these days, there must be a reason...

When Nokia choose to go with Gecko WebKit wasn't even a viable option.

Nokia also seems to want to get some interesting browser plugins going in the long term, and WebKit doesn't have XUL.

GeraldKo

04-26-2009, 03:40 PM

Sure, [page reflowing] can be done, but that doesn't make it wise to do so. ;) And besides, it's not the only (nor the best) way to solve the "large websites don't fit so well on small screens" dilema.

What's better than page reflowing to fit large websites on small screens?

(BTW, I, and I think the other FWTV fans, such as lm2, will be perfectly happy for FWTV to be abandoned so long as Nokia provides some other way to see large text -- that is, as large as the user chooses -- on a small screen without scrolling. We've already said as much.) (Tear generally does this job very well, but there are still rare websites where I have to go back to MicroB to use FWTV.)

krisse

04-26-2009, 03:54 PM

What's better than page reflowing to fit large websites on small screens?

Unless I've missed something, we don't know what size the screens will be on the new devices.

If the new device's screen is, say, 7 inches, then the need for FWTV will be much smaller.

qgil

04-26-2009, 04:00 PM

(Tear generally does this job very well, but there are still rare websites where I have to go back to MicroB to use FWTV.)

URLs please?

GeraldKo

04-26-2009, 04:08 PM

Unless I've missed something, we don't know what size the screens will be on the new devices.

If the new device's screen is, say, 7 inches, then the need for FWTV will be much smaller.

And I'll be replacing my N800 with an iPod Touch!

(More likely, it would just force me to keep using my N800 for a long, long time, until Web progress outstrips even Bundyo's exertions.)

GeneralAntilles

04-26-2009, 04:28 PM

Unless I've missed something, we don't know what size the screens will be on the new devices.

You've missed quite a lot, actually, but that tends to happen when you leave a community. :)

If the new device's screen is, say, 7 inches, then the need for FWTV will be much smaller.

Hahaha. No. The screen size isn't changing (not dramatically, anyway).

krisse

04-26-2009, 04:38 PM

Hahaha. No. The screen size isn't changing (not dramatically, anyway).

If the screen size is staying the same, what's the point of increasing the resolution?

GeraldKo

04-26-2009, 04:41 PM

Oh, yeah, Krisse, I forgot to say: Welcome back! Good to see you!

(I never agreed with your campaign against Fit Width to View, but I sure liked Tablet School, your good humor, and your fine writing. :))

And there's no change in screen resolution planned.

krisse

04-26-2009, 04:49 PM

GeneralAntilles

04-26-2009, 04:53 PM

If the screen size is staying the same, what's the point of increasing the resolution?

As GeraldKo says, there's no increase in resolution.

krisse

04-26-2009, 05:35 PM

As GeraldKo says, there's no increase in resolution.

Is it going to remain a general computer with no specific purpose?

GeneralAntilles

04-26-2009, 05:39 PM

Is it going to remain a general computer with no specific purpose?

I don't know how to answer this question, and I'm not sure what's wrong with it being a computer in your pocket (your premise is fatally flawed).

GeraldKo

04-26-2009, 06:04 PM

Is it going to remain a general computer with no specific purpose?

I propose taking this recent conversation over to Idle Speculation (http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=282228#post282228), where I just responded, without knowing it, to your post here. :)

krisse

04-26-2009, 06:07 PM

I don't know how to answer this question, and I'm not sure what's wrong with it being a computer in your pocket (your premise is fatally flawed).

There's nothing wrong with a general pocket computer without telephony. I'm just wondering why no one else is making them after four years of Nokia doing so.

If a product's going to be successful, it has to either break into an existing market or find a new market. How can maemo 5 devices do either of those things if they stay pretty much the same as maemo 4 devices? What will change that will suddenly get people interested in the device?

The iPod Touch is cited on here as an example of a successful pocket computer, but most people don't buy it as a computer, they buy it as a media player. If you look at the customer comments for the iPod Touch on Amazon, most of them discuss media playback as the main feature. They might mention the other stuff too, but it's clearly not the driving force for their purchase.

This is a typical review for the iPod Touch on Amazon:

"As an iPod music player the iPod Touch is fantastic. As a photo browser it's great. As a video player it is, screen size limitation aside, incredible. And as a game platform it is super fun! Throw in PDA capabilities and WiFi connectivity and you've got a major winner."

...does that sound anything like a typical maemo user?

GeneralAntilles

04-26-2009, 06:27 PM

There's nothing wrong with a general pocket computer without telephony. I'm just wondering why no one else is making them after four years of Nokia doing so.

I'd say the technology hasn't quite gotten to the point where it needs to be for a general purpose pocket computer to really do what people need it to do until now.

Intel's certainly pushing MIDs, Microsoft has Origami, and there are several companies pushing extremely powerful ARM SoCs that fall outside the range for smartphone devices. The big players see the potential (http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3596691272.html) in the market segment even if you don't. The netbook's dominance will be short lived. People don't want smaller laptops, they want something that fits in their pockets, and smartphones just don't cut it for browsing Facebook.

If a product's going to be successful, it has to either break into an existing market or find a new market. How can maemo 5 devices do either of those things if they stay pretty much the same as maemo 4 devices? What will change that will suddenly get people interested in the device?

Nokia's broken into the market, now they're ramping up to watch it explode.

The form factor may be similar, but the guts aren't even remotely comparable. An OMAP3 tablet is in a different universe from an OMAP2 tablet. It's got the guts to provide a smooth web experience, to be a powerful media player, to run those 3D games, and generally do everything one would expect a laptop to do, but also fits in your pocket.

The iPod Touch is cited on here as an example of a successful pocket computer, but most people don't buy it as a computer, they buy it as a media player.

. . . and what's preventing the Maemo 5 device from being that, too?

kanishou

04-26-2009, 11:21 PM

Maemo is not a tiny traditional mobile display, 800px width is about as much as most websites have been optimized for until not so long ago (and which is still generally considered).

What you have to take into consideration is, that it doesn't matter so much how wide the website is. What you are interested in is to comfortably fit the text column you are reading, and a website that forces text columns to be considerably wider than 800px has bigger problems than not displaying well on mobile devices.

Once the text column fits on the screen with proper text wrapping, it is only a matter of setting a font size you are comfortable reading at. Quim already indicated that this will be possible, so you shouldn't have an issue with the new browser. At least the sites that have been mentioned in this thread so far seem to reflow flawlessly. It may be inconvenient at times if some websites force a ridiculously small font size, but that is no different than on the desktop really. And in that case it is a valid question why you are using a mobile-optimized website that was obviously designed for devices at much lower DPI, with no consideration to scalability (e.g. that mobile ESPN page). As for the mobile nytimes page, this seems to be perfectly scalable and respect the user's font choices, so as long as you set the font size to something you are comfortable reading at, I don't see what could possibly be the problem.

In any case, breaking the layout of a website to make it fit on the screen in its entirety is not the right approach IMO. Unlike most (or probably all) mobile phone browsers, the Maemo browser is not that far from a desktop browser that we would need to resort to ugly hacks to make things usable.

qgil

04-27-2009, 12:19 AM

Please keep this thread on-topic with "Fit Width to View related posts. Thanks!

Unless I've missed something, we don't know what size the screens will be on the new devices.

If the new device's screen is, say, 7 inches, then the need for FWTV will be much smaller.

It is known that Maemo's primary goal is to fit in your pocket. It is also known that the Maemo 5 SDK is set to a 800x480 screen resolution.

TA-t3

04-27-2009, 04:46 AM

If we go back to the issue in question:

1) As far as I know Opera first came up with the original fit-width-to-view concept.

2) As a vendor focusing mainly on the mobile market (as that's where they got paid), I imagine the main reason behind the design was to make it easier to wiew web pages originally made for much wider displays than any mobile devices at that time. As an alternative to the WAP sites, which never really took off. Opera and fwtv made it possible to watch "normal" sites.

3) With our Nokia tablets we have a much wider display (both in pixels and size) than typical mobile devices, so even though the web page width issue is still there to some extent it isn't that bad (although there are setbacks - the old BBC news page fit our tables perfectly, the new one doesn't).

4) Instead, width our wide screens we can use the fwtv function for something more, because the tablets have convenient hardware zoom buttons: Make fonts large enough to be readable (for those of us who can't focus very close), by combining FWTV with zoom.

With our screens 4 is probably more important than 3, and I'm not sure if 4 is even possible or feasible with narrow-screen mobile devices. If we just look at 4 (make the fonts readable), the ultimate way of doing that is simply to increase fonts and let the "standard" browser functions reformat the text flow (and obviously BrentDC's concerns about .txt not wrapping correctly comes into play here). That should work better for the purpose of making fonts readble (for more sites) than FWTV.

To conclude: For me I would be quite satisfied if I could get a tablet browser which lets me "zoom" font sizes (and just font sizes) as easily as I can today zoom them by first switching to fwtv and then press zoom. For the problem of 4) this would probably be even better than fwtv.

On my desktop browser I "zoom" the fonts by pressing "ctrl" and "+" a number of times. That would not be satisfactory on a tablet, it's too cumbersome. Heck, it's too cumbersome on the desktop even. So, give me the above and I'll be happy to let today's fwtv go. The loss of 3) I can handle, even though there are a few sites that work beautifully width it (that is, not just for fonts). 4) is much more important though.

eiffel

04-28-2009, 07:01 AM

noventa98

04-28-2009, 07:54 AM

Several web sites (for instance www.repubblica.it) offer on-page letter magnifying functions (A+ or A-). I use those to avoid FWTV, although it is a little annoying clicking several times on these tiny links.

Having the browser pre-determine what size is best for the reader as suggested above would be great. If this is not possible I would rather keep the function and improve it. Would the following features difficult to implement in the new browser?

- warning message (that can be switched off)

- make the FWTV function work only in the browser window in which the user has specified that he wants it switched on.

- switch off FWTV when the browser is closed.

I would not bury the function deep in some menus. A newbie could switch it on (just playing with the new tool) and forget altogether what (and where) is was.

Regards,
Antonio

TA-t3

04-28-2009, 07:57 AM

@eiffel:
Interesting. That page doesn't even work with firefox + font size increase (ctrl-+) on the desktop. That's maybe because of the table.

GeraldKo

04-28-2009, 08:07 AM

YoDude

04-28-2009, 08:33 AM

@eiffel:
Interesting. That page doesn't even work with firefox + font size increase (ctrl-+) on the desktop. That's maybe because of the table.

Yup...

The same with IE7.

qgil

04-28-2009, 10:02 AM

Here's an example of a page that's currently unusable without Fit Width To View. It would be interesting to see how the Fremantle browser handles it:

https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=17957&hl=en

Zooming out getms almost all the page without horizontal scroll. You see the full body text plus one full column plus half the other. But then font size is very small. Increasing font size to largest makes it readable.

fms

04-28-2009, 10:22 AM

Zooming out getms almost all the page without horizontal scroll. You see the full body text plus one full column plus half the other. But then font size is very small. Increasing font size to largest makes it readable.
Given that for many pages there is no way to have page fit the tablet screen with a reasonable font size, without the "Fit to page" feature, and that many tablet users do want this feature, in one shape or the other, have you considered implementing a similar feature from scratch and adding it to the new (Fremantle) browser? To avoid breaking page layouts, it may be useful to rename it to "Try fitting to width", and bail out on HTML elements that cannot be resized.

qgil

04-28-2009, 10:32 AM

Given that for many pages there is no way to have page fit the tablet screen with a reasonable font size, without the "Fit to page" feature, and that many tablet users do want this feature, in one shape or the other, have you considered implementing a similar feature from scratch and adding it to the new (Fremantle) browser? To avoid breaking page layouts, it may be useful to rename it to "Try fitting to width", and bail out on HTML elements that cannot be resized.

FWTV is dropped. Some users will miss it, some users won't.

A couple of questions to consider. Is Mozilla upstream considering this feature? Ultimately that is the upstream project where those features should be pushed. Is FWTV a feature that can be added as an extension through addFons or...: You know, at the end all this is open source.

noventa98

04-28-2009, 10:52 AM

FWTV is dropped. Some users will miss it, some users won't.

Thanks for the info. I thought that was not final. We could have spared the discussion... ;)

If somebody will come up with a FWTV features that can be added to the browser, ok.

Let's see what Fremantle and the new hardware will offer to improve rendering and readability of web sites where current users switch-on the FWTV and zoom-in function.

Regards,
Antonio

EDIT: better orthography for better readability...

GeraldKo

04-28-2009, 01:41 PM

Tell me if I'm wrong ...

All MicroB is open source
The code used for FWTV can readily be identified and lifted
The browser that ships with the "N900" will accept add-ons
A good programmer could modify the MicroB code and make FWTV an add-on for the new browser

Bundyo

04-28-2009, 03:25 PM

Addons are javascript, a whole restyling action is going to require quite a bit of juice with javascript and probably will be slower (or much slower without the JIT). But doable nontheless.

GeneralAntilles

04-28-2009, 03:36 PM

Addons are javascript, a whole restyling action is going to require quite a bit of juice with javascript and probably will be slower (or much slower without the JIT). But doable nontheless.

Alternatively, just go right in and patch the code.

fms

04-28-2009, 03:37 PM

Alternatively, just go right in and patch the code.
This feature is not as simple as "patching the code". It requires lots of thoughtwork.

fms

04-28-2009, 03:39 PM

Addons are javascript, a whole restyling action is going to require quite a bit of juice with javascript and probably will be slower (or much slower without the JIT). But doable nontheless.
BTW, is it possible to implement fit-to-width in Tear? =)

Bundyo

04-28-2009, 03:48 PM

If I had any control over the rendering from outside, maybe I can try :)

There are some helpful CSS and javascript tips here btw:
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20070613235507819

sjgadsby

04-28-2009, 03:48 PM

Is Mozilla upstream considering this feature? Ultimately that is the upstream project where those features should be pushed.

To save some searching, "Implement 'Fit to window width' as in Opera 8.0 (no-horizontal-scrollbar mode)" is Bug 276166 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=276166) in Mozilla Bugzilla. In a little more than four years, it has accumulated twenty votes, ten comments, and no developers.

Still, upstream is the place to fight for this feature. Vote the bug up. The going in-favor argument there seems to be tied to small screens on UMPCs and netbooks. As that's a new and fast growing market segment, you might find some increased interest in the feature.

GeraldKo

04-28-2009, 04:12 PM

To save some searching, "Implement 'Fit to window width' as in Opera 8.0 (no-horizontal-scrollbar mode)" is Bug 276166 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=276166) in Mozilla Bugzilla. In a little more than four years, it has accumulated twenty votes, ten comments, and no developers.

Still, upstream is the place to fight for this feature. Vote the bug up. The going in-favor argument there seems to be tied to small screens on UMPCs and netbooks. As that's a new and fast growing market segment, you might find some increased interest in the feature.

Thanks, sjgadsby, for making this easy. :)

I just signed up and posted a Comment in favor. I'd "vote" for it if there is such a thing, but I haven't figured out how to. :(

sjgadsby

04-28-2009, 04:22 PM

I'd "vote" for it if there is such a thing, but I haven't figured out how to.

Voting isn't as easy to spot as in maemo.org Bugzilla, but it is there, toward the top, in the section between the grey bar containing the bug number & title and the grey bar for attachments.

Look for the "Importance" line. As I write this, it shows "enhancement with 20 votes (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/votes.cgi?action=show_bug&bug_id=276166) (vote (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/votes.cgi?action=show_user&bug_id=276166#vote_276166))". You'll need to follow that "vote" link, and create an account there if you haven't already.

GeneralAntilles

04-28-2009, 04:23 PM

I just signed up and posted a Comment in favor. I'd "vote" for it if there is such a thing, but I haven't figured out how to. :(

Vote (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/votes.cgi?action=show_user&bug_id=276166#vote_276166)

nilchak

04-28-2009, 05:00 PM

I agree with lm2 - it should be an option.

When there are discussion about possibility of Nokia removing the option of the stylus (or any choice for that matter), then I hear everone clamouring of the choice of having both. So how come the OPTION to have FWTV is not wanted or welcome and instead iss recommended to be removed ?

Its simple - don't enable it if YOU don't want it, but let users have an option at least.

And seriously UserContent.css editing is not a friendly solution. Its only for developers who know what they are doing. and even then its not a toggling way to change FWTV.

I for one use FWTV often and welcome this option.
In hope changing fonts is a easily selectable option (unlike on the desktop where you require multiple clicks and menu navigation).
IMO, this should be a quick-select-deselect kind of operation .

noventa98

09-05-2009, 05:58 AM

So we have apparently a workable solution for this issue.

If I understand correctly the FWTV buttons on the N8X0 have disappeared (the zoom function is reserved for the camera (any hints from NW09 attendees about other applications using those buttons? Can it be re-programmed for other uses?).

For browsing and reading there is:

- zooming function (with the spiraling movement), which as someone reported elsewhere is better used to view images. From what I have seen on the videos the movement is a little awkward, however having the real thing in hands could change the perception.

- double tapping on a frame to automatically fits the frame to the screen. Someone asked about text wrapping: so far I haven't seen an answer (or I just missed it): is this supported? How is the reading improved with this feature? What happens to images included in an article when fitting the frame?

Given the size of the screen, the size of the characters will inevitably be smaller than on the other tablets. General comments by people who have seen and used the N900 point to an excellent screen: in that respect does it make up for smaller characters?

Are there other tricks to improve online reading, especially for the über 50s (like me...)?

Thanks

pelago

09-05-2009, 06:54 AM

I'm sure I saw in at least one video that you can still use the top buttons to zoom in the web browser.

Personally I would like to see being able to increase/decrease the font size independently of image and div widths, with reflowing of text. And have the choice remembered per site (like Firefox).

kanishou

09-05-2009, 10:19 AM

You can increase the font size (which will re-flow the text), but I don't believe it is remembered on a site by site basis.

Generally nobody should have trouble finding a setup at which they can easily read text, but wildly different font sizes and paragraph widths on websites may still be an issue. In my experience, that is not a problem in general use though. In a few worst cases, you might need to zoom in a bit further (via spiralling or +/- buttons) and pan horizontally to read the text. But at the largest font size, I doubt that this would ever be the case for anyone.

As for images, if they are properly floating in the text paragraph, then they will just show up as expected. If they are outside the paragraph, you will of course have to pan to see them, if you zoomed in on the text.

daperl

09-05-2009, 12:59 PM

If they are outside the paragraph, you will of course have to pan to see them, if you zoomed in on the text.

Is double-tap zooming a toggle? If I double-tap a second time does the browser zoom-out to the full page?

kanishou

09-05-2009, 08:51 PM

Is double-tap zooming a toggle? If I double-tap a second time does the browser zoom-out to the full page?

Yes, though it can be a bit fiddly (I presume that if you double-tap on a different area, it will zoom in to it first).

daperl

09-05-2009, 10:38 PM

Yes, though it can be a bit fiddly (I presume that if you double-tap on a different area, it will zoom in to it first).

Thanks for the info. That would be good. Some of the pseudo code should be as simple as this:

def beginPageLoad:
lastArea = fullPage
def onDoubleTap:
thisArea = getTappedArea()
if thisArea is lastArea:
zoom to fullPage
lastArea = fullPage
else:
zoom to thisArea
lastArea = thisArea
That's generally how mobile Safari works.

NZtechfreak

09-06-2009, 06:26 AM

I'd like to voice my strong preference for having text reflow on double-tap, just as it works in Opera Mobile.

As others have said it just makes for a better reading experience (and I'm not hard of vision in the least). No side-scrolling, just perfect ease - it would be amazing in the N900 - especially with the page down on space bar behaviour this browser has (just watched Peter Schnaider's demo video where he illustrates it). It makes a huge difference to longer browsing sessions, as anyone who has used Opera Mobile on a WinMo device will tell you. My Xperia had the same resolution as the N900, and it was brilliant for browsing between the screen resolution and text reflow. You could take in the site, almost always in its entire width, at the default zoom and read text at that level (although not with ease) - you'd see what you wanted to read and then BAM! You double-tap and there it is in font of you, text reflowed, easy to read.

Did it work in all sites? No. Did it work for the vast majority? Yes.

Should it be a default setting? I don't honestly care, just as long as its there somewhere. For me this is a key behaviour of a mobile browser, even when browsing desktop website versions at WVGA resolution, and if you look at the iPhone, Android, and Opera Mobile you'll see that they all have this behaviour - doesn't seem to be turning off end-users in any of those environments does it?

pelago

09-06-2009, 07:43 AM

NZtechfreak, that sounds great. Any videos of this in use?

NZtechfreak

09-06-2009, 05:38 PM

Which behaviour are you referring to? If you mean page down on space bar in the N900 its the Peter Schnaider video I mentioned, searching for his name + N900 in youtube should bring it up (otherwise its linked from an article on the Symbian-Freak front page today).

If you mean zoom+reflow text on double tap, probably the best example video would be the hands on with the HTC Hero browser on youtube (can't remember the exact title to be more specific).

pelago

09-06-2009, 06:12 PM

It was the zoom+reflow I was referring too. Thanks for the youtube hint. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzNF4JPfKtM seems to show it quite well, and looks good. Nice portrait mode UI and onscreen keyboard too, although I'm not convinced by the pincing to zoom out.

noventa98

09-16-2009, 09:55 PM

I watched the video by JKK and was quite disappointed by the double tap zooming function in the browser. It doesn't reflow the text to fit the width of the screen. :-(

http://www.umpcportal.com/2009/09/jkk-gets-hands-on-with-the-nokia-n900-video-and-podcast/

Maybe it was the WiFi connetion or the pre-production version. At least I hope it was... Any other example showing a fit to screen effect? Of course, vids where the zoomed in text does not overflow the screen size do not proof that some sort of width management is in place.

Thanks,
Antonio

Markosib

09-19-2009, 06:02 AM

Obviously Nokia considered that option and decided the time investment would cost more than the feature was worth.

Obviously? Spoken like a true General, autocratically but.....! This is a great feature well worthwhile when it works and for us sight-challenged users will be even more important on smaller screens (read N900). Isn't this something that the community could fix? Like many here I use FWTV a lot but would like to see it improved. Without it browsing is well nigh impossible for me.

GeneralAntilles

09-19-2009, 06:07 AM

Obviously? Spoken like a true General, autocratically but.....!

There isn't an explanation that isn't covered by my statement. You're free to disagree with Nokia, but that doesn't change the validity of my point.

This is a great feature well worthwhile when it works and for us sight-challenged users will be even more important on smaller screens (read N900).

Why not reserve judgement until you try the device? FWTV isn't the only solution to the problem, and maybe you'll find you like the solutions Nokia decided were workable more.

Isn't this something that the community could fix? Like many here I use FWTV a lot but would like to see it improved.

Then scratch your own itch! That's what open source is all about. MicroB is open source, if you want FWTV then make it happen.

Without it browsing is well nigh impossible for me.

Again, this seems like a strange summary judgement to make without having used the device.

Markosib

09-19-2009, 07:42 AM

There isn't an explanation that isn't covered by my statement. You're free to disagree with Nokia, but that doesn't change the validity of my point.

You seem to know that Nokia 'obviously' decided not to fix FWTV...I'm not so well connected! But there would be no cost in leaving the feature intact and as-is. To me it is important!

Why not reserve judgement until you try the device? FWTV isn't the only solution to the problem, and maybe you'll find you like the solutions Nokia decided were workable more.

What? Swirly and tap&tap. Is there something else? Both of these features are worthy but neither deal with my need to zoom and squeeze.

Then scratch your own itch! That's what open source is all about. MicroB is open source, if you want FWTV then make it happen.

Yes General I'm itchy, thats why I'm here! Being a part of the solution....

Again, this seems like a strange summary judgement to make without having used the device.

Have I missed something? I can't read it without zoom and if I zoom I must scroll...! Its the scrolling that's a pain, no?

What is obvious is that others here feel similarly and together we are looking for solutions.

GeneralAntilles

09-19-2009, 01:33 PM

You seem to know that Nokia 'obviously' decided not to fix FWTV...I'm not so well connected! But there would be no cost in leaving the feature intact and as-is. To me it is important!

Actually, there would be. If they ship it, it has to be supported. Supporting it costs in time and testing. No feature is free. :)

Even with support-costs aside, in its current state, FWTV has lead to more user confusion about the functionality of the browser than any single other feature. You don't know how many times I've helped people who thought that MicroB was complete trash because they had FWTV turned on and it was ruining all of the site rendering.

What? Swirly and tap&tap. Is there something else? Both of these features are worthy but neither deal with my need to zoom and squeeze.

That's a determination you can't make until you use the device.

Yes General I'm itchy, thats why I'm here! Being a part of the solution....

Then you're better off not worrying about what Nokia has decided to do and, instead, should figure out what you want to do.

Have I missed something? I can't read it without zoom and if I zoom I must scroll...! Its the scrolling that's a pain, no?

I still recommend reserving final judgement until you use the browser.

What is obvious is that others here feel similarly and together we are looking for solutions.

OK, easy, grab the source once the final SDK is out and put together a plugin. Perhaps you'll even be able to do it better than Nokia could manage. If so, there's always the chance Nokia may end up integrating your patch in the future.

noventa98

09-21-2009, 05:30 AM

We have no complete answer from members here with hands-on experience regarding the browser when it comes to zooming in text (either double tap or swirling). The only example is the video mentioned in my earlier post, which shows that zooming does not re-flow the text, so one is obliged to scroll horizontally. Any testimony/video to the contrary?

Kanishou mentioned earlier that you can increase font size, which will re-flow the text. How do you do that? Are the hardware buttons used for that? Or do you have to dig into the menu to obtain a larger font? He also mentions that the device does not remember the setting when you navigate away from the page.

Can both functions work combined, and how? Let us say one increases font and then double taps to fit the screen. Will it work or will you just lose the increased font in the second step?

Any of the early N900 users can jump-in and share his or her experience and point to vids which I may have missed?

Thanks,
Antonio

Andre Klapper

09-21-2009, 05:46 AM

But there would be no cost in leaving the feature intact and as-is. To me it is important!

That feature NEVER WAS intact. It was a huge source of bugs and never worked well. And no, Nokia won't continue shipping this broken "Fit to width view" concept and I am happy about it.

joppu

10-18-2009, 03:37 PM

Marius Gedminas says:
October 15, 2009 at 10:15 am

Ctrl + Shift + X launches the X Terminal app.

There’s a Ctrl + Shift + I in the web browser that enables reflow mode (zoom in and the paragraphs are reflown to fit within the screen width).

These are documented: Backspace in the browser goes back a page, Space scrolls down a page, Shift + Space scrolls up a page.

!

Source here (http://www.maemo-guru.com/2009/10/nokia-n900-keyboard-shortcuts-galore/)

leek

12-03-2009, 01:29 PM

My two cents: SmartFit and Fit to Width have been done for years by Access's Netfront browser, which, to me, provides the greatest amount of control over how content is displayed, of any mobile browser I've used. I can tell it whether to include graphics or not, whether to display just the text without any page layout formatting or display it with page layout formatting, turn on or off a virtual window, etc.

With NetFront I can view written content pages without distracting ads or images, and they load ultra-fast over cellphone networks. But more importantly, the text wraps and flows over a single screen without ruining the entire page.

Such features would be highly desirable in Fremantle. I agree with the OP and several commenters that horizontal scrolling is undesirable.

User-specified CSS files may be a way to mitigate the problem, but only if Fremantle respects CSS specifications with regard to text flow, font sizes, etc. (I haven't tried it yet).

Then again, there's always Lynx...