@pauland, I am happy for you to disagree but you have pooh-poohed almost everything I suggest people do with their phones or browsers.
Have you built this against a UX context? Have you conducted usability tests with potential customers?
If so, we have have come away with different outcomes.

I often change my browser aspect. I often zoom into a site's detail, professional or otherwise. I see many others doing similar interactions.
I also have had to deliver a system, not just a website, to a customer where some staff were afraid of MS Windows and would not change away from VGA resolution, only wanting turn-key applications.
There is a spectrum of use and to discount any user story is flawed. Collectively, they will lead to design decisions that are justifiable and not opinion.

My point about having no image was directed towards the smartphone user who might be faced with a lot of scrolling to hit the content that is of interest.
Scrolling ruins any presentation as the viewer is more likely to miss context and important information.

Desktop/laptop and tablet are of a like nature so that using the same resolution/image for them is no biggie.

Quote Originally Posted by pauland View Post
As far as bandwidth goes we could just dismiss non urban users in poor reception areas as a tiny proportion of the audience.
I design for non urban users, being one myself. It it works for my set-up, as an outlier, then I have high confidence it will work elsewhere.

Quote Originally Posted by pauland View Post
I and many others think that mobile versions of websites that are graphic and information heavy should be heavily edited for the mobile platform, not just a desktop version made small.
I totally agree. I, however, come from the position if my main site is well-tuned, a port into a mobile one is far less onerous.

I spend a lot of time emulating large and small and seeing the objective reports from Lighthouse and other tools and use these to guide my better understanding.

Acorn