- From: Rob Brackett via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 19:44:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
ON THE OTHER HAND (watch me talk myself out of this whole thing, ha!) The more I think about this, the more I realize I may have subconsciously been looking for this: ```css /* Simple styles for all my stuff */ @media (prefers-motion) { /* sprinkle in fancy transitions and animations, etc. */ } ``` instead of: ```css /* Fancy styles ~and motion~ for all my stuff */ @media (prefers-reduced-motion) { /* negate all the motion stuff I did above */ } ``` However, that first scenario is actually entirely impractical. Since any query involving an unknown property results in a non-match, that means a user-agent that doesn’t support this feature at all (either because it’s old or hasn’t done any work) would never give you any way (in plain CSS, at least) to add your motion. `@media not (prefers-motion)` and `@media (prefers-motion)` would both evaluate to `false` and there’s no way to check a media feature in an `@supports` rule (as I understand it, at least), which is a real practical problem. So… I think I rescind my whole concern anyway, because the practical issue here is *much* bigger than my vague double-negative concern. Sorry for all the wasted breath :\ -- GitHub Notification of comment by Mr0grog Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/442#issuecomment-254919712 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 19:44:39 UTC