Day: May 4, 2021

Posted on

16px or Larger Text Prevents iOS Form Zoom

Category Image 052

This was a great “Today I Learned” for me from Josh W. Comeau. If the font-size of an <input> is 16px or larger, Safari on iOS will focus into the input normally. But as soon as the font-size is 15px or less, the viewport will zoom into that input. Presumably, because it considers that type too small and wants you to see what you are doing. So it zooms in to help you. Accessibility. If you don’t want that, make the font big enough.

Here’s Josh’s exact Pen if you want to have a play yourself.

In general, I’d say I like this feature. It helps people see what they are doing and discourages super-tiny font sizes. What is a slight bummer — and I really don’t blame anyone here — is that not all typefaces are created equal in terms of readability at different sizes. For example, here’s San Francisco versus Caveat at 16px.

San Francisco on the left, Cavet on the right. Caveat looks visually much smaller even though the font-size is the same.

You can view that example in Debug Mode to see for yourself and change the font size to see what does and doesn’t zoom.

The post 16px or Larger Text Prevents iOS Form Zoom appeared first on CSS-Tricks.

You can support CSS-Tricks by being an MVP Supporter.

Posted on

Let’s use (X, X, X, X) for talking about specificity

Category Image 052

I was just chatting with Eric Meyer the other day and I remembered an Eric Meyer story from my formative years. I wrote a blog post about CSS specificity, and Eric took the time to point out the misleading nature of it (I remember scurrying to update it). What was so misleading? The way I was portraying specificity as a base-10 number system.

Say you select an element with ul.nav. I insinuated in the post that the specificity of that selector was 0011 (eleven, essentially), which is a number in a base-10 system. So I was saying tags = 0, classes = 10, IDs = 100, and a style attribute = 1000. If specificity was calculated in a base-10 number system like that, a selector like ul.nav.nav.nav.nav.nav.nav.nav.nav.nav.nav.nav (11 class names) would have a specificity of 0111, which would be the same as ul#nav.top. That’s not true. The reality is that it would be (0, 0, 11, 1) vs. (0, 1, 0, 1) with the latter easily winning.

That comma-separated syntax like I just used solves two problems:

  1. It doesn’t insinuate a base-10 number system (or any number system)
  2. It has a distinct and readable look

I like the (X, X, X, X) look. I could see limiting it to (X, X, X) since a style attribute isn’t exactly a selector and usually isn’t talked about in the same kind of conversations. The parens make it more clear to me, but I could also see a X-X-X (dash-separated) syntax that wouldn’t need them, or a (X / X / X) syntax that probably would benefit from the parens.

Selectors Level 3 uses dashes briefly. Level 2 used both dashes and commas in different places.

Anyway, apparently I get the bug to mention this every half-decade or so.

The post Let’s use (X, X, X, X) for talking about specificity appeared first on CSS-Tricks.

You can support CSS-Tricks by being an MVP Supporter.