- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:48:46 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 10/04/2017 23:21, David MacDonald wrote: >> Now, by all means, let's discuss technology - do we need SCs that vary > depending on viewport width? do we need SCs that only apply to devices > that have touch, and can this be detected? But don't use inappropriate > "mobile", "desktop", "tablet", "phablet", etc categorisations. > > I'm fine with or without the rigid distinctions. Most wire frames I get > from major communications and advertising agencies these days use those > terms, but perhaps that will change, and I'm fine with exploring small > vs large screen. break points It's fine to use those terms as shorthand when talking about specific sizes/breakpoints for a wireframe/layout, with the understanding that there is no one true "mobile" or "tablet" or "laptop" or "desktop" size ... these are all fluid and bleed into each other (and again, I can make a window small on my desktop, and trigger "mobile" size). What is *not* appropriate is to then also make further unrelated assumptions based purely on that viewport size (i.e. "anything with a viewport < 320px must be a phone, so we can assume it has touch, and vice-versa anything with viewport > 960px is a laptop/desktop so there won't be any touchscreen"). Any yes, even large agencies/companies get this wrong (partly related case in point Yahoo!/Flickr, who seemed unaware that there are touch-enabled laptops which also have a mouse, and that touch and mouse may well be used at the same time https://twitter.com/patrick_h_lauke/status/717781821468098562) P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Monday, 10 April 2017 23:49:17 UTC