W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Next step for DAP Ambient Light Events

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:39:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBt=8jUyk1WLsM=b+XHJEXgPpW_FG-bgvfZegRqotkc3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
Cc: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Tran, Dzung D <dzung.d.tran@intel.com> wrote:
> My thoughts:
> Ambient light sensors have different range in lux depending on the manufacture and type of use.  I don't know if it makes sense to map these values into "type".
> Just a couple data point from googling..:
> http://www.maxim-ic.com/datasheet/index.mvp/id/7175
> http://www.intersil.com/en/products/optoelectronics/ambient-light-and-proximity-sensors/light-to-digital-sensors/ISL29011.html

Do they return different lux values in the same light conditions? If
so, that sounds like simple manufacturing bugs that haven't been
important enough for people to care about yet.  That would actually be
a strong argument to *avoid* exact values (since they aren't "exact"
at all), and to instead just use a handful of keywords describing
lighting conditions.

Note that the multitude of types details in the link in the original
post seems excessive.  Further discussion in the CSSWG has mild
consensus on using just three values, "dim", "bright", "washed".
Exact names don't matter; the point is just that they map to the three
major lighting condition categories - a dark room or nighttime
conditions, normal interior lighting or outdoor shade, and direct

These three categories are distinct and useful.  It doesn't appear
that you really need any more detail than that in common usage.

Received on Friday, 24 August 2012 22:40:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:20 UTC