W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [mediaqueries] status and moving forward

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:55:17 +0100
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0B0ED834-80E5-46C2-9C70-970AEF52796E@rivoal.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 20:04, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:46 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> On 02/09/2016 08:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> What problem do you have with light-level?  Aside from the "should we
>>> also map a11y concerns to this", I think the feature itself is 100%
>>> stable and well-designed.
>> That's exactly my concern. :)
>>  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2016Feb/0295.html
> That's not a problem with light-level in any way.  At most, it's a
> question of "should we do this future MQ, or just recommend using
> 'light-level' for that purpose".  a11y concerns won't change our
> design of 'light-level' at all - it does exactly what it's supposed
> to.

I think the concern is that if we decide we want the separate a11y MQs,
and design them, and then find out that they cover the luminosity use cases
just as well as light-level, but in a different way, we may come to regret
having done light-level first.

Not having designed the a11y MQs yet, I am not sure we can rule it out
entirely, but it sounds far fetched to me.

light-level does solve well the problem it is designed to solve, and I
don't think the theoretical possibility that we may at some point
in the future come up with a different way of solving the same problem
that has more positive side-effects is a good justification for not
shipping it. If it was, we'd never ship anything.

 - Florian
Received on Saturday, 27 February 2016 17:55:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:00 UTC