Re: [mediaqueries] status and moving forward

On 02/26/2016 02:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:46 PM, fantasai <> 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. :)
> 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 agree that the design of 'light-level' shouldn't change. I don't
expect it to. I do expect that whether it should be masquerading
as an a11y MQ is likely to change based on further thought on those.

Imho, light-level and contrast and bg/fg preferences are three
different things. light-level handling will often be ONE OF
   a) contrast changes
   b) bg/fg inversion
   c) both a) and b)
and which one of these three options the author takes is IMHO
not something we or the OS should be assuming. E.g. I think it's
perfectly reasonable to have a light-on-dark high contrast design
for dim lighting. Telling UAs that triggering 'light-level: dim'
for low-contrast users is not going to serve them well on my website.

I can live with light-level shipping as-is if we remove the a11y-related
suggestions, if you feel this is critical.

However, I would *prefer* if we delayed it to L5 so that we can release
'light-level', 'preferred-contrast', and 'preferred-fgbg' *together*.
This lets us set up authoring best practices (through spec recommendations
and examples, and hopefully any tutorials based on them) to encourage
anyone handling light-level to also opt in for the relevant a11y queries.


Received on Sunday, 28 February 2016 23:42:49 UTC