W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > April 2017

Re: [csswg-drafts] [cssom-view] layout viewport vs visual viewport

From: bokand via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:31:54 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-295380908-1492626713-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I think layout as default and visual as opt-in is what we should use for all APIs unless there's a very strong reason not to do so (I have yet to see one). In general, if the developer hasn't thought about pinch-zoom (or OSK) the experience for the user is better when the API defaults to layout. The developer may have missed an edge case in her implementation but that's her own fault for not thinking about pinch/OSK, not the user's. Developers who truly care about pinch/OSK scenarios and have thought about them can and will opt in to using the visual. I think this is a better alignment of incentives -- defaulting to visual means users are punished for a developer's omissions. IMHO IntersectionObserver doesn't fall outside of this principle, I agree with Ojan's last post in [the issue](https://github.com/WICG/IntersectionObserver/issues/95).

The VisualViewport API would enable all the scenarios in the developer feedback we got and in more robust ways (e.g. resize event for zoom). We would ship VisualViewport API before making the change to scroll APIs. I'm just going to go through the outstanding issues in the API repo to make sure we address anything that we'd regret shipping (especially naming).

Regarding terminology, I just posted my thoughts in [this issue](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/206). In short, "layout viewport" is actually fairly misleading so I'd like to get away from it. I'm ok with using "viewport" or a more descriptive name. 

GitHub Notification of comment by bokand
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/505#issuecomment-295380908 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2017 18:32:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:11 UTC