W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2012

Re: [whatwg] Implementation complexity with elements vs an attribute (responsive images)

From: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 22:00:10 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOKKrgOtDLs67Mi7BHGNXXi_gXvCkKgUc82c5sXYoy0sA_23aA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 5/13/12, Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net> wrote:
> By resolution I mean pixel density (regular vs "Retina" display), so this
> doesn't affect layout.
>
Ah, I must have misunderstood you.
>
> I can imagine layout complexity being tied to bandwidth (an image-rich
> design vs minimalistic text-only design), but I'm not sure how that would
> work in practice given that cache has "infinite" bandwidth, and network
> speed can change any second on mobile connections.
>
The layout would not depend directly on bandwidth, but on an upper limit on
"graphic-heaviness."

> It would be weird if page design changed when you moved between cell
> towers or left/entered a cafe that had public WiFi. And if bandwidth media
>
> query was defined to be fixed, then you'd sometimes end up stuck with
> wrong design that was chosen based on a temporary network state.
>
There's no question that bandwidth media queries would be a bad idea.
How would you measure bandwidth anyway? My thinnest downlink is a few
Mb/s, but I'm charged an increasing amount for every 10Gb/mo of
international downloads. Authors should of course not evaluate how
important their graphics are to users against bandwidth scarcity
(artificial or real).

> There is no such problem if only same-CSS-pixel-size images are swapped
> in-place.
>
True.

I've got a hunch I'm over-thinking this, but might
bandwidth-constrained users not prefer miniatures instead of huge
pixelated images?
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2012 22:00:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:08 GMT