- From: James Craig via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 23:20:09 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@fantasai wrote:
> Your example in #3856 (comment) doesn't work because you're assuming that (prefers-contrast) only matches high or increased contrast modes, but in fact it also matches low contrast modes.
The spec proposes `low`, but would it ever match? It's a theoretical value that's not associated with any real user preference; there is no "low contrast" switch on any common operating system. I proposed in #2943 that the "low" value be removed since it's not implementable.
Meanwhile, macOS and iOS both have a "non-high-contrast-but-increased-contrast" mode (first shipped in iOS 7, over 8 years ago) that the CSS MQ5 spec does _not_ account for. If those platforms ever ship a true "high" contrast mode, [the current syntax of the media feature would become incompatible](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2943#issuecomment-599737863), because it doesn't allow that future flexibility. Adding forced colors into the mix makes the authoring syntax even more complicated.
The preferable, simple boolean:
```css
@media (prefers-contrast) { }
```
Would become this at minimum:
```css
@media (prefers-contrast: high) or (prefers-contrast: increase) { }
```
Why force authors to be so verbose in order to match the most common use case?
We're crossing into the other issue a bit, so instead of going into more detail here, I'll point across to the proposal in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2943#issuecomment-599751283.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by cookiecrook
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3856#issuecomment-655806870 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2020 23:20:10 UTC