- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:48:20 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Nov 9, 2009, at 16:41 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >>> That would be 'application', but not maximized. >> >> Uh, but those can be two different windowing modes, with the chrome >> subtly different and different behaviour (e.g. the window can't be >> dragged if maximised). > > That's UA/OS dependent. How it is implemented is UA/OS/UI dependent, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a semantic difference. The differences are: - show me alongside other apps (windowed mode) - show me, no other app, but keep the OS UI (maximised) - show me, and nothing else (fullscreen) I'm happy for implementers to map the values we list to whatever makes sense on their platform, but we need to at least have a vocabulary that covers the more common modes. All versions of Windows in recent memory as well as most Linux windowing managers support the three levels above, only OSX believes that it's a good idea to annoy people who are two pixels off in clicking on the scrollbar. Without the three levels above, we can't capture the most usual windowing semantics. >> Or are you thinking about this in terms of the broken OSX UI that >> can't >> tell the difference? If so, I strongly object — it's a usability >> nightmare. > > Exactly, so stop imposing your dirty Vi command-line view of the > world on the rest of us, Robin! :) Actually, I'm thinking of usable click-and-drool UIs as my primary use case. > But seriously, I don't think we need to get to the level where we > are specifying behavior. No, but we do need a level of semantic description that matches typical UIs. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 16:48:49 UTC