- From: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 08:44:24 -0400
- To: Gregers Gram Rygg <gregersrygg@gmail.com>
- Cc: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>, public-webevents@w3.org
- Message-ID: <BANLkTinDAoU5k9MrvOCGC08Xnk5pkbu4FA@mail.gmail.com>
I don't know why this needs to be mentioned in the Touch Events spec. Detecting "on<event>" in element/window is the preferred method of detection for any event type. On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Gregers Gram Rygg <gregersrygg@gmail.com>wrote: > Lets not turn this into a discussion about religion. Some prefer > UA-detection, others feature detection. Specifications are meant to > specify how browsers behave, also in edge-cases. So developers don't > have to fight with browser differences. > > I'm not saying the user should not be able to choose, but rather that > this is how browsers behave today. Developers find it useful, and I > think that makes it valuable in the specification. If I have a site > that loads scripts on demand, why should a desktop user without touch > hardware load touch-specific scripts? > > Gregers > > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:07 AM, timeless <timeless@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't like these paths. > > > > I'm using my Nokia n900 w/ the native browser (which predates touch > events). > > - When I visit Facebook, I can choose from <mobile, touch, desktop>. > > Each of these are useful. The touch site is useful even though I don't > > have multitouch hardware and even though the browser doesn't really > > send anything remotely touch related. > > - What the browser does have is a small screen with a reasonable > > chance that the user will want to have big hit areas. > > > > The right approach that web developers should take is more or less the > > approach that Facebook took: > > 1. design a site for <desktop> > > 2. design a site for <mobile> > > 3. provide a way to switch between <desktop> and <mobile> > > 4. design a site for <touch> > > 5. provide a way to switch between <mobile> and <touch> and from > > <touch> to <desktop> > > 6. provide a survey link in <touch> to find out about capabilities of > > clients (crowd sourcing is good) > > > > My desktop is actually more of a touch enabled tablet than a desktop > > (1024x600 - multitouch capable) - but my browser isn't touch enabled. > > Facebook still lets me select the touch site, and it's useful to me. > > > > People like to think that they should be able to automatically pick > > the only format for users. But this really isn't the smart way to do > > business -- good businesses understand this. Consumers like being able > > to choose from a couple of different things based on their current > > needs. Sometimes I choose the mobile site even though I'm using a > > desktop capable computer -- often this is because I'm being charged > > for data and thus the mobile site saves me money. > > > > Detection is better done using other means: > > 1. Does the user seem to be clicking the wrong link a lot? -- This > > could be indicated by many requests which are aborted or replaced by > > other requests shortly afterwards where the original request never > > appears in sub resource referrer requests and the later request does. > > If so, the hit regions are probably too small and the site should > > offer a touch version to the user. > > 2. Does the user seem to have a slow link? -- This could be indicated > > by a high delay between requests for a main resource and sub resource > > (again pair checking via referrers). If so, the site could offer a > > mobile version to the user. > > 3. Does the user agent seem to be slow? -- This can be detected by > > client side scripts under performing sampling tasks. This could mean > > that the system is swapping to death (old computer, mobile computer, > > ...). If so the site should offer a lite version to the user (this > > could be an html version as opposed to a mobile version, or it could > > be a mobile version). > > > > Note that the user's preference for a given version of the site is > > partially a per UA instance setting, and there's a simple way of > > managing this, the site merely gives the UA a cookie indicating the > > preference that the user has selected. Users will relatively quickly > > settle into one version or another. But they will also be happy to be > > in control of the decision. > > > > All of this is possible today. And some bigger sites do some of this. > > If you try loading gmail while your desktop is swapping to death or > > while something is eating all of your bandwidth, gmail will give you a > > note ~this site is taking too long to load, would you like to try the > > html version~. > > > > The world at large would be better served by people making reusable > > demos of things like this (or getting them integrated into the common > > frameworks) than it would be by user agents adding some more things > > which enable developers to do bad jobs of discriminating against users > > of user agents. > > > >
Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 12:44:53 UTC