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

Re: [csswg-drafts] [mediaqueries-4] Interaction Media Features make a rigid primary/"rare" distinction

From: Patrick H. Lauke via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:49:32 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-260938328-1479300571-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> I do not understand how it is useful to the author to have a as the 
sole information about input capabilities a list of input capabilities
 that includes those that are known to the UA to be either something 
that the user doesn't use at all, or something that the user uses 
occasionally but typically not.

Let's leave our fundamental disagreement here by the wayside...it's 
clear that we won't be able to resolve this (but I will still stress 
that the desire may well be that UAs are very smart about being able 
to say what user uses with what frequency, but currently the reality 
is that they aren't...e.g. on a laptop with touchscreen, even if the 
user is heavily making use of touchscreen where possible, they'll 
report the mouse/trackpad as being primary; sure, OS/UA *could* be 
cleverer and notice "oh, 51% of interactions in this session came from
 touchscreen, so maybe i should report THAT as the primary", but they 
don't).

Instead, let's look at the PR I submitted (which does not try to drop 
the concept of "primary", but tries to offer a more holistic advice 
that authors *may* wish to use a combination of 
`pointer`/`hover`/`any-pointer`/`any-hover` to design for all possible
 inputs, or they *may* wish not to...but the point is, it's something 
for the author to decide, and my PR tries to point out why they may 
wish to do one or the other). Let's leave this issue here as is for 
now, but as said if at least some of what I propose in the PR can be 
rolled into the spec, I can live with the rest of what's in the spec 
regarding primary etc.

[edit: I just pushed a further commit to the PR 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/715 to soften some of my 
language, making it clearer that it's optional/a "may" for 
authors...but ultimately, that decision needs to rest with authors in 
any case]





-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by patrickhlauke
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/690#issuecomment-260938328 
using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2016 12:49:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:05 UTC