W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > December 2016

Re: [csswg-drafts] [mediaqueries] Media Feature: "reduce motion" user setting

From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 04:28:26 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-266637739-1481603304-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@inoas 
I think there is no advantage to having 
`motion-preference: no-preference | reduced | increased`
instead of
`prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference | reduced`
`prefers-increased-motion: no-preference | increased`

In usage, you need to write either:
`@ media (motion-preference: reduced) {}`
or 
`@ media (prefers-reduced-motion) {}`
and the following is useless:
`@ media (motion-preference) {}`

`prefers-reduced-motion: no-pref | reduce` is extensible, but only 
towards things that go in the same direction. e.g:
`prefers-reduced-motion: no-pref | reduce | reduce-motion-sickness | 
reduce-vibrations | reduce-rotations`
You can be specific as to the kind of motion you want to reduce, but 
you can also use it as a blunt tool, in a boolean context without 
specifying which kind of motion you care to reduce, and its still 
works.

Or, turning the argument around: because authors will use things in a 
boolean context if we make it possible, we should either not make it 
possible, or make sure that any value added later is compatible the 
original semantics. I think you're arguing for the former. I think it 
is possible, but does not bring any improvement over doing it as 
separate queries, and takes away the possibility of having multiple 
refinements expressed via boolean semantics.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/442#issuecomment-266637739 
using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 04:28:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 19 October 2021 01:30:27 UTC