On 2015-01-17 19:39, MattCoder wrote:

> Indeed! But, if the "body" had a "width" setted this wouldn't occur.
>
> For example, adding "width: 1024px" on body in style.css it will now be
> fine to see on mobile.

No, that's not the correct solution. The correct solution is to use media queries in the CSS and specify different widths depending on the resolution. Also known as responsive design.

Or you have a separate mobile site.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Sunday, 18 January 2015 at 10:01:37 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-01-17 19:39, MattCoder wrote:
>
>> Indeed! But, if the "body" had a "width" setted this wouldn't occur.
>>
>> For example, adding "width: 1024px" on body in style.css it will now be
>> fine to see on mobile.
>
> No, that's not the correct solution. The correct solution is to use media queries in the CSS and specify different widths depending on the resolution. Also known as responsive design.

+

<meta name = "viewport" content = "width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0">

On Sunday, 18 January 2015 at 10:01:37 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-01-17 19:39, MattCoder wrote:
>
>> Indeed! But, if the "body" had a "width" setted this wouldn't occur.
>>
>> For example, adding "width: 1024px" on body in style.css it will now be
>> fine to see on mobile.
>
> No, that's not the correct solution. The correct solution is to use media queries in the CSS and specify different widths depending on the resolution. Also known as responsive design.
>
> Or you have a separate mobile site.

Just to be clear, I didn't mention in my previous post that "width: 1024px" or "min-width: 1024px" is the correct solution, I just suggest this because it's a little effort (add 1 line in the stylesheet) to make it look less ugly in mobile than it looks today (http://i.imgur.com/9JYNVNk.png).

Matheus.