As long as the pieces are going to stretch to fit the size of the space, maybe you could make an Interactive Diagram increase in size on a large (in terms of pixels) mobile screen.
This could be hard to control without knowledge of the entire page layout. The way I usually insert Diagrams into articles is by defining a 2 x 1 table, where the left cell contains the Diagram, and the right cell a list of pieces that can be clicked to summon the corresponding move diagrams (generated by the Diagram script as a 'satellite'). I then specify an explicit width for the left cell (and top alignment for the right cell). This to leave as little white space as possible between the board and the list.
It appears that the width specified for the table cell overrules the natural width of the Diagram itself; if I specify it too small the Diagram gets squeezed. So with an absolute width specified here, there would never be an opportunity for the Diagram to expand, no matter how wide the screen is.
I suppose the width of the left cell could be specified as a percentage of the screen width. Then the Diagram inside of it could expand if again the square size would be indicated as a percentage of the table width, rather than in pixels. Currently the Diagram script applies parseInt() to the value given for squareSize (this to prevent the 1+1=11 problem when you try to calculate something with it), so that specifying a width of 10% would be the same as specifying 10 (which by default is interpreted as pixels when used in the style width spec). It could make the script remember any non-numeric suffix to the value, and append that again to the number when specifying a width. Then it would be up to the one who configured the Diagram to decide whether he wants to use relative size (which would expand with the screen or window size when the surrounding HTML element does so).
But I don't think expansion would give a good result, unless overly large piece images are used (like 100x100). But of course the preson designing the page would know whether that is the case.
This could be hard to control without knowledge of the entire page layout. The way I usually insert Diagrams into articles is by defining a 2 x 1 table, where the left cell contains the Diagram, and the right cell a list of pieces that can be clicked to summon the corresponding move diagrams (generated by the Diagram script as a 'satellite'). I then specify an explicit width for the left cell (and top alignment for the right cell). This to leave as little white space as possible between the board and the list.
It appears that the width specified for the table cell overrules the natural width of the Diagram itself; if I specify it too small the Diagram gets squeezed. So with an absolute width specified here, there would never be an opportunity for the Diagram to expand, no matter how wide the screen is.
I suppose the width of the left cell could be specified as a percentage of the screen width. Then the Diagram inside of it could expand if again the square size would be indicated as a percentage of the table width, rather than in pixels. Currently the Diagram script applies parseInt() to the value given for squareSize (this to prevent the 1+1=11 problem when you try to calculate something with it), so that specifying a width of 10% would be the same as specifying 10 (which by default is interpreted as pixels when used in the style width spec). It could make the script remember any non-numeric suffix to the value, and append that again to the number when specifying a width. Then it would be up to the one who configured the Diagram to decide whether he wants to use relative size (which would expand with the screen or window size when the surrounding HTML element does so).
But I don't think expansion would give a good result, unless overly large piece images are used (like 100x100). But of course the preson designing the page would know whether that is the case.