Re: [css-ui] Agenda request: Revive directional focus navigation properties

I was also surprised that these properties were dropped and can't seem
to figure out why from reading the minutes[1] (other than references to
them being broken). Is there a list of the nav-index problems and
nav-left/right/up/down problems publicly available?

While at Opera I explained their benefits for TV development in an
article and demo[2] a couple of years ago and encouraged their use when
doing presentations and workshops on Web and TV. Their simplicity is not
only a boon for designers but also for performance on lower-powered
devices (most TVs/STBs) where CSS is preferable to JavaScript workarounds.

In terms of implementations, they are supported in Opera's TV browser
(as well as TV Store) so shipments with major manufacturers are
worldwide rather than just Europe. TV manufacturers tend to keep
statistics confidential but in terms of browser installations supporting
nav-*, it's realistic to count in the millions.

However, because these properties are intended for d-pad users, it's
true to say that support is minimal among major desktop and mobile
browsers, in which case I'd echo Giuseppe's question about what
constitutes a valid implementation, for future reference.

It's quite possible that I've overlooked or misunderstood something so
apologies if that's the case.

Daniel


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Apr/0428.html
[2]
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/tweaking-spatial-navigation-for-tv-browsing/


On 18/06/13 16:11, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:36:18 +0200, Tantek Çelik
> <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Leif Arne Storset
>> <lstorset@opera.com> wrote:
>>> Opera wants to revive CSS3 Basic User Interface's directional focus
>>> navigation properties: nav-up, nav-down, nav-right, nav-left [0]. I'd
>>> like
>>> to get a resolution for that on Wednesday's telcon.
>>
>> Glad to hear that Opera is willing to put time and effort into
>> advancing directional nav.
>> However, I don't know of any new information that merits any new
>> discussion of this topic.
>> See below for details/questions.
>>
>>
>>> Reasons: there are several implementations (Presto-based Opera and
>>> WebKit-based Samsung and LG browsers), they are in active use,
>>
>> Are any of these downloadable / testable on the open web?
>>
>> URLs to simulator downloads etc.?
>>
> 
> Our simulator are freely available
> http://business.opera.com/solutions/tv/emulator
> 
> Opera have had support for it in presto for quite some time, just try
> the test below with any 12.x (use shift+arrows)
> http://miketaylr.com/pres/framsia/spatnav.html
> 
> Finally there are plenty of TVs in the shops in europe that support it.
> 
>>> and HbbTV
>>> specifications depend on them.
>>
>> Specification dependency is insufficient to exit CR, and thus
>> insufficient to keep a feature.
>>
> 
> for the record, this spec is also implemented by thousands of TVs of all
> major brands, so is not only on paper.
> 
>>
>>> The WG originally dropped them on 17 April
>>> together with nav-index, but nav-index has problems that nav-up,
>>> nav-down,
>>> nav-right and nav-left do not have. So I think we had a "baby and
>>> bathwater"
>>> moment. :)
>>
>> Some different problems, some similar.
>>
>> E.g. do you have nav-* tests you'd like to contribute?
>>
>> If not, writing/contributing such tests would be one way Opera can
>> help "revive" the nav-* properties.
>>
> 
> We do have some TCs that we may potentially share (they need to be
> changed to make them suitable for publication)
> 
>>
>>> (I should have brought this up before, mea culpa, but since the edits
>>> haven't been made yet and LC hasn't happened, I reckon it shouldn't
>>> delay
>>> anything to change this now.)
>>
>> They're still "at risk", and the lack of publicly usable/downloadable
>> implementations / tests (for the many years that the spec was in CR)
>> has made it clear they're not CR-exit-worthy.
>>
>>
> 
> I think this is the controversial bit.
> Can you explain to me (not familiar with the CSS WG) what does
> constitute a valid implementation according to the exit criteria?
> 
> It should be clear by now, as pointed out few times [1][2][3], that
> there are implementations. On the other end, if the only valid
> implementations are desktop (and possibly mobile?) browsers that can be
> installed directly by the end user on major OSes, and if the only valid
> apps are those available on the web for free, that change things a bit.
> 
> In particular, can you clarify if usage such as in TV services, ebooks
> or automotive would not be considered now (or in future) valid
> implementations, assuming there is a not too complicated way to test them?
> 
> If so, what is the suggested way forward to handle these cases? Maybe
> create market specific "extensions" for features that WGs are not
> prepared to accept / desktop browsers to implement?
> 
> /g
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Feb/0027.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Feb/0037.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0169.html
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 04:00:00 UTC