Re: Comments on the discussion about target size and accidental activation (was Re: Minutes: AGWG meeting April 4, 2017)

Gregg wrote:

> sounds very HTML Specific……

It does sound that way, but I’d say it is browser-specific.

Just to follow the logic:

·         Any content shown in a “web page” (our unit of testing) must be shown in a browser, or be capable of being shown in a browser, therefore you can test it in a browser.

·         Anything shown in a browser has to be rendered by a browser.

·         Anything rendered in a browser is translated into CSS pixels, or can be compared to CSS pixels.

So given the variety of hardware pixel densities, using CSS pixels as a unit of size measurement is the most robust way across devices, even for plugins like Flash/Silverlight. The worst-case scenario is that you compare the size of something in a plugin black-box to HTML content next to it, or in another browser window.

On a related note, are we worried about plugins for 2.1? Given that browsers are deprecating them [1], by mid-2018 they might be a non-issue. It is getting to the point where companies are having to pay people to enable plugins [2].




“with Chrome 55 in December [2016], Flash will be deprecated entirely, with exceptions for "sites which only support Flash." In both cases HTML5 is expected to take up the reins”


“The world’s most hated plugin is clinging on thanks to a generous $5 discount offer from FedEx, which apparently desperately needs customers to reenable Adobe Flash to be able to print things from its website”

Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2017 08:31:26 UTC