W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > October 2020

[csswg-drafts] [mediaqueries-5] image backgrounds vs transparency (#5671)

From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 06:05:16 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-731131809-1603865115-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
fantasai has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [mediaqueries-5] image backgrounds vs transparency ==
Given the name of `prefers-reduced-transparency`, I would expect it to be "transparency is bad, but complex backgrounds are totally fine". However, I wanted to check if that's actually a correct interpretation of the accessibility requirement.

(@cookiecrook mentioned that `prefers-reduced-transparency` derives from a MacOS setting in a context where transparency is often used but background images aren't a thing; but on the Web, they definitely are. So we have this additional thing to consider.)

So the question is, is the requirement that generated `prefers-reduced-transparency` really about wanting reduced *transparency* e.g. because of some confusion over whether the obscured content is still relevant, or is it also about reducing decorative visual complexity--including both the use of transparency but also complex background images, such that authors should not be using complex opaque backgrounds either?

If the former (really only about transparency), do we also need an MQ for reducing e.g. patterned or image backgrounds to more subtle or solid effects? (And if so should that really be a separate MQ, given that adding one adds authoring complexity and fingerprinting surface?)

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5671 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2020 06:05:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:21 UTC