W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2006

[whatwg] Status bars and progress indicators

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:32:09 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0603210624420.8001@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, fantasai wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > 
> > In all of these cases, there are at most three segments: low, medium, 
> > and high, and in fact in all cases you could get away with having at 
> > most two segments (i.e. just having a "low" or "high" marker).
> 
> mmm, I've seen a *lot* of gauges that have a "low" threshold and a 
> "critical" threshold. I don't know what you mean by "get away with".

I mean that it would not be the end of the world if the <gauge> only 
supported two segments. The argument was that it should support an 
arbitrary number. I think the best compromise is to support three.


> I agree that Mikko's points about "good" and "bad" are important.
>   http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2004-September/002271.html

Yes, that's on my list of points to take into account already.


> To set the scale for a three-segment gauge you need to know
>   - min value
>   - max value
>   - lower threshold
>   - upper threshold
>   - optimum
>
> [...]

Right.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 22:32:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:45 UTC