- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:33:56 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Dennis Amrouche <dennis@screenlabor.de>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Jul 26, 2010, at 8:58 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: >> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On >> Behalf Of Tab Atkins Jr. > > >> So, yeah, like Brad says, if the "range of pixels within which the >> shadow becomes effectively invisible to the human eye" is a bit off at >> very high shadow blur lengths, you'll never notice. It's a pretty >> unimportant point. > > To the human eye, sure. Now, can we talk about testing implementations > for conformance ? I've been using an image editor (PhotoShop) with screen captures of the shadow to test implementations. The paint bucket tool can dump a contrasting color into the pure white or pure black (or other shadow color) areas. Then I can select the remaining blur area (or a region of set width/height) with the rectangular selection tool and glance at the info palette to see how many pixels wide or tall the selection is. If I am only interested in the outer part of the blend, I use a shadow with zero offsets. If the outermost blur pixel in a 200px region should be no lighter than 2% opacity, and the pixel outside that should be no darker than 2% opacity, then this can be confirmed with the eyedropper tool (if a black, 100% opaque shadow, I can just look at the brightness value. Otherwise some multiplication is still required). I don't have a way of automating this test, or doing it all within the browser.
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 04:34:27 UTC