Re: Screen Orientation Feedback

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Rich Tibbett <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:
>>> I'm not arguing that we remove the relative angle that's in the spec
>>> right now. I'm arguing that for device orientation events, we should
>>> provide coordinates relative to the screen as well.
>> This topic was filed as an issue against the DeviceOrientation spec in
>> March (
>> Interest from implementers is a strong indicator to proceed with such
>> spec additions. Active implementer engagement around spec
>> clarifications and additions is quite low right now.
> Cool, if we can have this added to an updated DeviceOrientation spec
> then that's definitely the best solution here.
> Though the issue above seems to suggest that the spec would define
> that the existing alpha/beta/gamma properties would be redefined to be
> screen-relative rather than device relative. Is that really going to
> be web compatible?
> I don't think mozilla would feel comfortable leading with such a
> change given our limited influence for mobile content. But if browsers
> with bigger mobile marketshare make such a change we'd definitely
> follow. Do you have any indication that there's interest in that?
> A safer option seems to be to introduce
> screenAlpha/screenBeta/screenGamma (or something similarly named) and
> make those relative to the screen.

Sounds good to me.

> That is something that I'm fairly sure I can make happen in Gecko.

OK. I believe we could implement these properties in Chromium based on
this intent (pending following the correct process there of course).

Do you have any thoughts on providing screen-adjusted devicemotion
event data also (i.e. acceleration, accelerationIncludingGravity,
rotationRate) or do you plan to just stick to providing
screen-adjusted deviceorientation event data for now?

- Rich

> / Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2014 08:39:22 UTC