W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2010

Re: [css3-background] vastly different takes on "blur"

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:15:24 -0700
Message-Id: <B78099DF-3309-43D8-B98C-EBA40E177EFD@gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>


On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:20 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>  
wrote:

> On 06/23/2010 11:14 AM, Brendan Kenny wrote:
>>
>> Just to be clear, aren't the mockups for each option going to be the
>> same thing? For instance, wouldn't Simon's example
>>
>> http://smfr.org/misc/shadow.html
>>
>> just be accompanied by the question
>>
>> "Would you describe this as 'blur: 8px' or 'blur: 16px'?"
>>
>> ?
>
> The examples should be diagrammed with dimensions, so there's
> no guessing e.g. how big the opaque part is compared to the
> original box. I think it's interesting to note that the blur
> centers on the edge of the shadow: I suspect many people had
> not realized that. (I didn't, until working on this aspect of
> the spec.)

Agreed. I was thinking to include a note about that, and then ask a  
question such as "which of the following renderings best describe a  
blur of 10px (and don't cheat to see what you browser does)", and  
include some variations that are all based on a black shadow (for  
widest range of perceptiple changes to transparent). The variations  
would include not only one version being twice the width of the other,  
but also the possibility of clipping to within some range that (1% -  
99%?) that a human can discriminate as different from totally opaque  
and totally transparent (and filling the 10px with that), and also  
testing whether or not people consider a pixel of 100% and/or 0% to be  
part of the countable part or not.
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 19:16:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:28 GMT