Re: [Page Visibility] Spec Updates

I don't think it should exist on either the document or the window... I 
think there should be a new `page` host object, and it should exist on that. 
But, I'm fairly certain that already won't ever be possible, because of the 
amount of existing web content out there that might define a global variable 
(on `window` of course) called `page` or `Page`.

But, on that same line of reasoning, isn't `document.hidden` (or 
`document.visible`) WAY too generic of a name that it's likely to run across 
a lot of existing web content who've defined such properties? I can think of 
a dozen different scenarios where such a property would be convenient to 
have stuck on the `document` object, so I think it's quite plausible that at 
least some (even a non-trivial) amount of current web content does that.

Of course, in principle, any property we add to any namespace has such a 
risk. But "hidden" and "visible" are extremely generic/simple and thus I 
think they run a much higher risk of collision, compared to 
"PageVisibility", etc.

And if we prefix the names as "PageVisibility" (or something like it), I 
think it belongs on `window` and not `document`, because a "page" is not, in 
general, part of a "document" as much as it is part of a "window".


--Kyle


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jatinder Mann" <jmann@microsoft.com>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 9:13 AM
To: "Arvind Jain" <arvind@google.com>; "Sigbjørn Vik" <sigbjorn@opera.com>
Cc: <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Subject: RE: [Page Visibility] Spec Updates

> Based on the teleconference last week, we had consensus on using document 
> rather than window. Window suffers the issue of being the global namespace 
> for variables; the risk of collision with an undeclared variable named 
> 'visible' is high.
>
> Developers can extend properties on Document as well, but it's less 
> common. I recommend we go with document.visible and 
> document.visibilityState.
>
> If there are any explicit concerns with document.visible or 
> document.visibilityState, please raise them now.
>
> Thanks,
> Jatinder
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-perf-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-web-perf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arvind Jain
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:52 PM
> To: Sigbjørn Vik
> Cc: public-web-perf@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Page Visibility] Spec Updates
>
> Re. using Document vs. Window, do we have consensus on using Document?
> Could folks express any concerns they may have with using Document?
>
> Thanks,
> Arvind
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2011 23:57:16 +0200, Karen Anderson (IE)
>> <Karen.Anderson@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding the conversation around whether the visibilityState should
>>> be PAGE_HIDDEN vs PAGE_VISIBLE in the case that the window is not
>>> minimized but is fully obscured by another window:  We all seem to
>>> agree that this detection is hard and has odd meaning implications
>>> for mobile or tablet devices, but furthermore, I brought up the 
>>> following point on today's call.
>>>  Many, if not most, accessibility tools completely overlap the target
>>> window.  For example, magnifier applications demonstrate this.  And
>>> depending on the screen resolution, on-screen keyboards also have the
>>> possible effect of covering the entire window.  There could be other
>>> scenarios as well.  Given this, we should report visible for any
>>> non-minimized window, obscured or not.
>>
>> The browser might have more information, particularily in the case of
>> multiple tabs and/or windows it might know that a tab/window obscured
>> by another tab/window is fully hidden, even though it is not
>> minimized. The spec could leave it up to the browser with wording like 
>> the following:
>> HIDDEN: Used when the browser is confident that no part of the page is
>> visible to the user, for instance when the page is minimized or
>> completely covered by another page. An explanation that being hidden
>> by other applications might not indicate hidden to the user might also be 
>> needed.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sigbjørn Vik
>> Quality Assurance
>> Opera Software
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 14 May 2011 00:53:13 UTC