Re: [PageVisibility] specific visibility states

> From our discussion at the F2F, my understanding was that the 
> PAGE_PAGE_PREVIEW state was intended to capture the scenario where the 
> page is in some preview form and not intractable. For example minimized 
> into a dock or tile of some type. It indicates the page is visible in some 
> smaller preview state.

Is the reasoning behind this that the site would do something *different* 
than it would if it were in the hidden state? Like are you suggesting a site 
would modify its own rendering state to account for the fact that it was in 
a preview state, and perhaps even show/hide alternate content? That's seems 
like quite a stretch of likelihood as a use-case. Seems to me that a page is 
either fully visible, or not visible at all... this in-between stuff seems 
like getting too deep in the weeds.


> I personally don't believe we need the PAGE_TASKBAR_PREVIEW state. This 
> came out of the F2F discussion, and was intended to cover the scenario 
> where the page is in a preview form but still possibly animating or 
> intractable like what you see in the Windows 7 taskbar.

Again, is the suggestion that a site would somehow modify its animations or 
interactivity to still be present but more limited or something, when its in 
this special mostly-minimized-but-still-visible-and-interactive-operating 
mode? I don't see any reason why a site would want to display some different 
content (or interactivity/animations) in this mode compared to full mode 
(and just letting the OS scale down the actual screen real estate display of 
it).

Consider the "card" metaphor that mobile WebOS uses for a moment... are we 
suggesting that a web page would somehow alter its display/functionality 
when the card is scaled down while you are thumbing between cards? I think 
that would be much more annoying to users if the content didn't just scale 
down but actually changed itself. I don't see any reason why we should go 
down the road of setting that precedent or supporting it.


--Kyle

Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 06:56:24 UTC