- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:30:54 -0700
- To: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Cc: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>, CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>, public-device-apis@w3.org
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com> wrote: >> The feature is much harder to use without named ranges. I think the >> evidence in this thread may have shown that it's *practically >> impossible* to use without them, given the large variance in detected >> light levels. > > With that said, are you thinking that the lux value as reported by the > device isn't that important? Instead just use the lux range name? For my own needs, yes. The range names are more than sufficient for page/app styling based on light conditions. You should only need to use the lux value if you're doing a game or something that wants a continuous value. >> As noted, it appears that only three levels are necessary - normal, >> dim, and bright. These three levels serve the vast majority of >> use-cases adequately. > > What are the ranges for these 3 names? is that up to the UA? It looks like they have to be, yes. For clarity I'd probably define, in a clearly-marked informative section, what lux values the ranges map to in an ideal sensor, but have a strong note that UAs should (RFC2119 SHOULD) adjust the ranges to respect the device's own sensitivity, so as to achieve the same results. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 20:31:42 UTC