[csswg-drafts] Pull Request: [mediaqueries-4] expand/change emphasis of advice for use of pointer/hover/any-pointer/any-hover

frivoal has just labeled a pull request from patrickhlauke for 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts as "mediaqueries-4":

== [mediaqueries-4] expand/change emphasis of advice for use of 
pointer/hover/any-pointer/any-hover  ==
Related to the discussion in 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/690 this is an initial 
expansion/change to the current advice given for 
`pointer`/`hover`/`any-pointer`/`any-hover`.

[edit: copying the relevant description from the individual commits 
here, for completeness]

* Change "rare" to "all available": "rare" is a loaded term, 
unnecessarily implying (without much foundation) the 
likelihood/frequency that a user may use inputs deemed "not primary" 
by the OS/UA. In addition, as `any-*` also include the pointer that is
 deemed primary, the "rare" moniker is even more inappropriate, as by 
definition the "primary" is not "rare".

* Reword the note about pointer/hover vs any-*: Change the emphasis of
 the note, away from making the `any-*` features sound like a 
nice-to-have, and more towards aknowledging that these can be useful 
in making a page/app adapt better/preemptively to all available input 
methods.

* Add new example for any-hover usage: Include the common touchscreen 
laptop scenario, and show how `any-hover` can be used to make two 
completely different judgement calls on the part of the author (one 
inclusive, one exclusive)

* Add additional any-* consideration note to pointer/hover: The 
rationale given in any-pointer/any-hover about not relying exclusively
 on any-* is equally valid in reverse here. This does not imply that 
authors must design for "lowest common denominator", but simply opens 
up the possibility that they may wish to keep non-primary inputs in 
mind when deciding on their layout/functionality.

* Soften/expand the advice in the modified note for any-*: Reworded to
 remove the implication that authors should "ensure" that "ideally" 
they take any-* into account...turning it into a "may", which explains
 more about the rationale for the existence of these `any-*` features 
without seemingly mandating that authors must follow a specific 
style/design decision.

While I'm still not a fan of the "primary" concept, this PR would be a
 compromise I could (currently) live with (in which case this PR could
 close the relate issue)

See https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/715

Received on Thursday, 17 November 2016 04:03:23 UTC