- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 12:07:16 +0000
- To: Frederico Knabben <f.knabben@cksource.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: Ben Peters <Ben.Peters@microsoft.com>, public-editing-tf <public-editing-tf@w3.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-indie-ui@w3.org" <public-indie-ui@w3.org>
On 12/12/2014 08:38, Frederico Knabben wrote: > At a frist glance I almost agreed with you, Björn. > > Note though that, in terms of output, these events we’re talking about > are adapted to the input method used to generate them. We’re not any > more talking about device specific events, like “mouse click” or “key > press”. One of these events could be “insert character” and the way it > is triggered vary depending on device, platform, ATs, etc. In that case, it feels to me like these are the exact opposite of "Responsive". In RWD, the design responds to the device/environment. Here, the events themselves don't respond...the layer above them is mediating the device-specific events into these abstracted events. So it's not the events themselves that are "responding" to anything, but the environment (the specific device/input modalities). Also agree with Tobie that the apparent jumping on the "Responsive" buzzword bandwagon is, if nothing else, too late now. I still favor some form of naming that conveys this is about abstracted intent. P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 12:07:45 UTC