- From: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 22:00:10 +0000
- To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 5/13/12, Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net> wrote: > By resolution I mean pixel density (regular vs "Retina" display), so this > doesn't affect layout. > Ah, I must have misunderstood you. > > I can imagine layout complexity being tied to bandwidth (an image-rich > design vs minimalistic text-only design), but I'm not sure how that would > work in practice given that cache has "infinite" bandwidth, and network > speed can change any second on mobile connections. > The layout would not depend directly on bandwidth, but on an upper limit on "graphic-heaviness." > It would be weird if page design changed when you moved between cell > towers or left/entered a cafe that had public WiFi. And if bandwidth media > > query was defined to be fixed, then you'd sometimes end up stuck with > wrong design that was chosen based on a temporary network state. > There's no question that bandwidth media queries would be a bad idea. How would you measure bandwidth anyway? My thinnest downlink is a few Mb/s, but I'm charged an increasing amount for every 10Gb/mo of international downloads. Authors should of course not evaluate how important their graphics are to users against bandwidth scarcity (artificial or real). > There is no such problem if only same-CSS-pixel-size images are swapped > in-place. > True. I've got a hunch I'm over-thinking this, but might bandwidth-constrained users not prefer miniatures instead of huge pixelated images?
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2012 22:00:59 UTC