RE: [mediaqueries] hover: on-demand

> > On Feb 10, 2016, at 10:12, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 6, 2016, at 03:56, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> >>> hover: none | on-demand | hover
> >>>
> >>> Unless we can make 'on-demand' result in a boolean evaluation of
> >>> "false", I think we should drop the value and classify such UAs as "hover:
> none".
> >>> It seems like these UAs should be opted into @media not (hover)
> >>> designs rather than @media (hover) designs.
> >>
> >> I agree, but I think Tab doesn't (he introduced this part), so I'd
> >> like to hear his take on this.
> >
> > Yes, I disagree.  on-demand hovering UAs *can* handle hover-based UIs,
> > it's just not ideal.
> That's true, but I wonder if the upside is bigger than the downside.
> 
> Upside: If for some reason both a hovering UI and a non-hovering UI are
> possible, but the non-hovering UI would harder to use than the on-demand-
> hovering UI, authors can make the decision to show the later one on devices
> that can cope.
> 
> Downside 1: Authors will accidentally provide hovering UIs on device where
> this is very inconvenient-but-possible, even though they have an viable
> alternative to offer.
> 
> Downside 2: It is unclear what people who don't want to hover but are able
> to should set their UA to represent them as. Pick none, and you risk opting in
> to pages which break if you do hover after all, pick on-demand and you risk
> getting pages with a hover UI even though an non hover one was available.
> 
> My personal and non-data based estimate of this makes me think that the
> upside is actually a limited corner case, downside 1 is likely to be pretty
> common, and downside 2, even if rare, is a missed opportunity for
> accessibility.

What is a real world end user scenario that requires the need for this MQ? Is this being requested by someone? Personally, this feels like a solution looking for a problem, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

Greg

Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2016 04:08:11 UTC