- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:50:04 -0500
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Alex Komoroske <komoroske at chromium.org> wrote: > document.visibility > A read-only property that returns a string, one of the values described in > the next section. ?Developers can use the existence of this property to know > that they can rely on the rest of this API, too. > ?? ? Values returned by all conforming implementations > ?? ? ? ? ? * ?visible? : the full-size page content is at least partially > visible on at least one screen. > ?? ? ? ? ? * ?hidden? : the full-size page content is not visible to the > user at all. This leaves very little up to the implementation, which might be overly restrictive. For example, my alt-tab overlay in Windows might be large, and entirely cover up a browser window. The browser would be required to treat this as "hidden". That's not necessarily optimal, since it's a transient state that will go away when the user selects a window. It may also be difficult to implement correctly. It seems like, although the window is technically not visible, the decision of whether to treat this as a hidden or visible state should be left to the browser's discretion. The earlier condition that I think you mentioned seemed reasonable: never say the page is "hidden" when it's not, eg. no false positives. It's more harmful to tell a visible page that it's invisible, than to tell an invisible page that it's visible: * ?visible? : the full-size page content may be at least partially visible on at least one screen. * ?hidden? : the full-size page content is not visible to the user at all. This gives implementations some latitude to decide whether a condition should be treated as hidden, and doesn't require figuring out precisely whether a window is visible in every case. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 15:50:04 UTC