1389788 - FF does not wrap a text into a visible area (on a mobile device)

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 1547181

(Core :: Layout: Text and Fonts, defect, P3)

Description

[hawran]

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/54.0
Build ID: 20170612122310
Firefox for Android

Steps to reproduce:

1. Open a web page.
2. Zoom in a text on the web page.


Actual results:

3. The text goes outside the visible area.


Expected results:

3. The text is wrapped into the visible area.
(as Opera does, for instance)

Comment 1

[hawran]

FF's version: 54.0.1
Android 5.1.1
Device: Sony Xperia Z1 Compact

Comment 2

[hawran]

(In reply to hawran from comment #0)
> User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101
> Firefox/54.0
> Build ID: 20170612122310
> Firefox for Android

No, it is NOT Firefox For Android (that beta version), it is just Firefox.

Comment 3

[Kohei Yoshino]

Please provide URL and probably a screenshot.

Comment 4

[hawran]

A whatever view on readers' posts (either global or on a particular one) on the site as follows:
https://www.root.cz/clanky/android-8-0-oreo-je-prislibem-rychlejsich-a-mene-narocnych-aktualizaci/nazory/
https://www.root.cz/clanky/android-8-0-oreo-je-prislibem-rychlejsich-a-mene-narocnych-aktualizaci/nazory/935484/

https://forum.root.cz/index.php?topic=16148.0
https://forum.root.cz/index.php?topic=16148.msg223205#msg223205

(see attached screenshots)

Sorry for the delay.

Comment 5

[hawran]

Attachment: Screenshot_2017-08-18-17-59-13.png

Comment 6

[hawran]

Comment on attachment 8903576 [details]
Screenshot_2017-08-18-17-59-13.png

Oops, my mistake, the next one...

Comment 7

[hawran]

Comment on attachment 8903576 [details]
Screenshot_2017-08-18-17-59-13.png

Oops, NOT this one, my mistake, the next one...

Comment 8

[hawran]

(In reply to hawran from comment #7)
> Comment on attachment 8903576 [details]
> Screenshot_2017-08-18-17-59-13.png
> 
> Oops, NOT this one, my mistake, the next one...

Sorry for the mess, I'd like to delete my previous two posts, pls...

Comment 9

[hawran]

Attachment: This ONE, :-)

Comment 10

[hawran]

Attachment: ... and THIS one.

Comment 11

[Michal Stanke (Mozilla.cz) [:mstanke][:MikkCZ]]

This seems like a duplicate to bug 1244712 and bug 929923 in different components.

Jonathan, what component does this actually belong to? AFAIK it's only relevant for Fennec, not desktop.

Comment 12

[Jonathan Kew [:jfkthame]]

Bug 929923 seems to be specific to text/plain, so that's rather different; I don't know what we do about the viewport for text/plain documents.

This is probably a dupe of bug 1244712, though.

I think the feature being requested here is somewhat different from the "font inflation" that we used to do, but (I believe) removed some time back. The idea there was that text with small font sizes would be enlarged to ensure it was readable on the device; but what the user seems to be asking for here (and, I think, in bug 1244712) is for the content to be reflowed when the user pinch-zooms to enlarge the display. That's a debatable feature: some would argue that pinch-zoom should never affect layout (unlike page zoom, which does); and then there's a UX question of how we'd distinguish pinch-zoom (magnifying without reflow) from page zoom (which in effect alters the viewport and therefore causes reflow).

At the top level, ISTM this belongs in an Android component because the first question that needs an answer is what feature(s) should be exposed in the product. As I understand the current product features, this is invalid because pinch-zoom is not expected to reflow content; but clearly some users would like a zoom-like feature of some kind with different behavior.

Comment 13

[hawran]

So what is the result?

NB Firefox (for desktop) breaks a text into lines so that it will fit into the available display area, Opera (at least for Android) as well. What is the problem then? (It's the 21st century, for God's sake...)

Comment 14

[Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio)]

This is bug 1547181 which has more context. The engine has support for this, so I think this would be mostly a matter of exposing the option in the UI unless I'm missing something.