- From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:39:26 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
(I've had several similar interactions, FWIW) So I think a large motivation for this min-size:auto feature was that it made it the default "flex-shrink:1" behavior less painful. If we drop the min-size magic, should we make flex-shrink default to 0 instead of 1, to prevent mysteriously-shrinking/overlapping flex items? ~Daniel On 02/14/2013 02:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > After a lot of feedback, I think we should revert min-width's initial > value back to 0. > > Our intention for the min-width behavior was admirable - in most > situations it wouldn't affect anything, but when the author didn't > take small sizes into account, they'd overflow the flex container > rather than just shrinking to nothing, and the user could just scroll. > > Unfortunately, both assumptions are violated in practice. > > One of my coworkers has been using Flexbox for quite a while to build > internal analytics displays, and nearly all of the problems he has > with Flexbox end up being that he needs to apply a min-*: 0 somewhere. > I helped troubleshoot something *today* where that happened, and it > was extremely difficult to figure out because there were nested > flexboxes, and they *all* needed to have the right behavior before the > page stopped breaking. In the meantime, because the initial value for > 'overflow' is "visible", not "auto", there's no indication of what's > actually going wrong, and no way to scroll to the overflowing stuff. > > Then, this afternoon, I got *another* coworker asking me about the > exact same problem - things weren't shrinking when he thought they > should be. > > These are not isolated cases. As far as I can tell, pretty much > everyone hits this on their first attempts at using flexbox, and it's > not at all clear what's causing the problem or how to fix it. This is > simply a major usability hazard, and in my experience vastly outweighs > the minor edge-case usability boon it was intended to provide. > > Based on this experience, I think we should revert this decision, and > remove the special 'min-*' behavior from Flexbox. Everything should > default to 0 min size. > > Chrome strongly supports this change, as Ojan has been yelling at me > about it for months. ^_^ > > ~TJ >
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 22:39:55 UTC