Re: [mediaqueries4]Differentiating touchscreen+mouse from touchscreen only scenarios

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Oren Freiberg

> >The fact that all the keyword MQs have mutually exclusive values so far
> isn't thus a necessary aspect, just an >incidental one.
> I always assumed this was intentional very interesting!! Although it is
> incidental I think it has become the way developers think about it and to
> me it doesn’t seem like this is the right place to break from that mental
> model.
> >We also thought of this but rejected it.  Using a special value for
> "both" means that anyone who designs a >stylesheet for "course" or "fine"
> will *not* match this value.
> I think that is the expectation that  "course" or "fine" will not match
> the combined value.
> I think this is desired more than a burden from my perspective.
> >Sure, it's possible for people to have styles for both "(pointer:
> >coarse)" and "(pointer: fine)" that fight, but I think most of the time
> the styles'll work fine, and letting people >naively apply their (pointer:
> coarse)" styles on a "hybrid" device will be fine.
> I expect "coarse" content and "fine" content to be very different so
> naively applying both won't be okay. I would guess that mobile devices
> (tablet and phone) to be the majority of  devices with only
> "(pointer:coarse)" so I expect their styles to be very different from
> devices with only "(pointer:fine)" typical desktop computers. As hybrid
> devices are not as prevalent it makes me feel that they will end up with
> bad experiences or more bugs due to accidental clashes.

I think there's always some risk that sites won't handle the hybrid case
well (but that risk goes down obviously as more and more laptops are
shipping with touchscreens).  I think the same arguments you're making
could be made for pointer:both - rather than have competing rules active,
pages may not get any rule and so be even more broken.

I think a less error-prone approach to separating them is to have separate
boolean rules, eg. 'fine-pointer' and 'coarse-pointer'.  This is also more
extensible (eg. what if we decide there's another option than just coarse
and fine, 'both' would be pretty confusing <grin>).

We also haven't talked about 'hover' yet.  The spec language there still
uses the "least capable primary pointing device" terminology.  Are you guys
OK with that?

Received on Saturday, 26 April 2014 01:43:03 UTC