W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2007

Re: ISSUE-112: Should progress run a UI or rely on other stuff too?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:27:06 +0530
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Web APIs WG" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tniy5gi1wxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:01:12 +0530, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

>
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Web APIs Issue Tracker wrote:
>>
>> Is it worth adding to progress events to support this use case, or
>> should it stay as small as possible?
>
> Are there any other actual use cases? What else would you use the progress
> events for if not a standard progress UI?

Measuring how your network operations are going, whether to time them out 
andswap to something else, ...

The issue here though is actually whether you should be able to build yourentire 
UI on nothing but progress events, or whether you should rely on 
otherspecifications for things like the start and end, and get them to define 
thatprogress events can be fired.

In that scenario, if you build a UI element you would make a standard UI widget 
that assumed no progress events, and a progress event extension that, if it got 
them, would refine the UI widget by adding some sense of progress. For example,a 
rectangular bar might normally have a cylon eye effect, but if you get progress 
events that tell you how far along you are you could change that to have a 
proportional progress bar.

As Maciej points out, that means you have to write widgets for each type of 
operation that might fire progress events. On the other hand it means you aren't 
relying on progress events in order to have at least some UI. And it lightens 
the requirements on the progress event spec.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com Try Opera 9.1 http://opera.com
Received on Saturday, 10 February 2007 08:57:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:57 GMT