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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:14:23 -0700
Message-ID: <4C226B1F.4010107@inkedblade.net>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
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 06/23/2010 12:15 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>
>
> 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.

I feel that these other questions are much more easily resolved
here, and I'd rather keep the question as simple as possible for
the one issue where we really would benefit from feedback. Getting
coherent answers from the web design community is difficult enough
as it is.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 20:15:04 GMT

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