W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > August 2009

Re: ACTION-994: Some evidence of CSS MQ in the wild

From: Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <404147.12272.qm@web45004.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
To: public-bpwg@w3.org

A few remarks about this example from Dan:

> Some additional info on this topic which might be useful: our own dev team
> in Dusseldorf has recommended the use of MQ in developing mobile widgets
> with fluid UI:
> 
> http://www.slideshare.net/danfooo/fluid-layout-techniques-for-vodafone-widgets

a) It is an interesting example for the utilization of CSS MQ. Nevertheless, since device capability repositorie (e.g. WURFL) often include detailed information about display properties -- including pixels counts and physical dimensions -- this confirms the general approach of performing media selection or adaptation on the server if at all possible, relying upon media queries as a second choice.

b) The example addresses an issue that is being raised more and more often in the community of mobile developers -- and which had also been highlighted some time ago (by whom?) in the BPWG. See for instance:

bryanrieger.com/issues/mobile-screens-and-pixel-sizes/
www.littlespringsdesign.com/blog/blog/2009/07/22/how-big-is-your-image/

c) An issue (nr. 293) had been dispatched as requiring no specific formulation, referring back to BP1 5.4.8. However, the suggested practices in BP1 might not be sufficient:
1. Specifying fonts only with relative measures (e.g. "larger") may not be enough -- one may really have to force the default font to at least "large" or "x-large" so as to have legible text.
2. Various versions of small "decoration" bitmaps (e.g. icons, bullets, etc) may have to be explicitly constructed to occupy more pixels so as to be recognizable on screens with higher pixel density. This aspect is not really tackled in BP1 5.4.8.
3. Content-rich pictures may not take advantage of the higher pixel count. Let us consider (street/geographical topographic) maps. If the pixel count increases while the density remains about the same, it is possible to enlarge the area represented on the display without a loss of legibility. At the other extreme, if the pixel count and the pixel density increase at the same rate, it is not really possible to enlarge the area represented on the screen that much without a marked loss of legibility (map features become minuscule).

I do not know whether there is enough material for a best practice, but the issue has decidedly gained much relevance recently.

E.Casais


      
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 21:30:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:09:01 UTC