Bugzilla

(In reply to Hiroyuki Ikezoe (:hiro) from comment #12)
> So, though I am not familiar with out font inflation handling, tweaking it for no viewport meta tag sites sounds the best thing to do here.  But I don't quite understand the font inflation doesn't inflate the font size on the google redirect pages.

Specifically regarding the Google redirect page - depending on the length of the URL, the amount of text on the page is just below our current line threshold (`font.size.inflation.lineThreshold` - 400 means 4 lines of square text, so a little less than two lines given the aspect ratio of a typical normal font), so it doesn't get inflated.

For very short URLs like the https://www.google.com/url?q=https://example.com example, the line threshold would have to be reduced to around 320, i.e. around 1½ lines of text. Historically (see bug 706193), this would have been too little for something like the footer on [nytimes.com](https://web.archive.org/web/20111129092023/http://www.nytimes.com/). Of course nowadays the NY Times has a mobile layout and is no longer relevant, but I'm not sure in how far other similar layouts might still be around that would be negatively impacted by a reduced line threshold.

(In reply to Hiroyuki Ikezoe (:hiro) from comment #12)
> So, though I am not familiar with out font inflation handling, tweaking it for no viewport meta tag sites sounds the best thing to do here.  But I don't quite understand the font inflation doesn't inflate the font size on the google redirect pages.

Specifically regarding the Google redirect page - depending on the length of the URL, the amount of text on the page is just below our current line threshold (`font.size.inflation.lineThreshold` - 400 means 4 lines of square text, so a little less than two lines given the aspect ratio of a typical normal font), so it doesn't get inflated.

For very short URLs like the https://www.google.com/url?q=https://example.com example, the line threshold would have to be reduced to around 320, i.e. around 1½ lines of text. Historically (see bug 706193), this would have been too little for something like the footer on [nytimes.com](https://web.archive.org/web/20111129092023/http://www.nytimes.com/) to remain uninflated. Of course nowadays the NY Times has a mobile layout and is no longer relevant, but I'm not sure in how far other similar layouts might still be around that would be negatively impacted by a reduced line threshold.