Re: [whatwg] Modify the Page Visibility spec to let UA's take into account whether iframes are visible on the screen
Roger Hågensen composed on 2015-03-31 21:09 (UTC+0200): ... For Mozilla browsers, you can go to about:config and set media.autoplay.enabled to âfalseâ. Also, the NoScript browser extension can make media click-to-play by default. I hardly think a lot of users want to follow directions like that. As a programmer/content designer it would make more sense to do so using either attributes or javascript instead of bothering the user. Turning off autoplay is a one time thing, not a big deal like the constant disrespect of sites disregarding instead of embracing user needs. Virtually every site bothers the user from the very moment any new domain is first accessed. Before support for IE6 was abandoned, some sites provided some respect for users by not sizing text in px units. Needing to zoom every new domain accessed to restore text to optimal size is bother. Needing to widen the viewport to accommodate the consequence of zooming so-called responsive pages is bother. Needing to click off unmovable flash needs update and works best with Javascript announcement popup windows is bother. Having to click a toolbar's readable bookmarklet to undo gray text is bother. All that activity just to make a site usable is considerable bother. Bother is a result of an assumption that because a page has been loaded that the visitor is ready right then to watch and listen to its contained media. Bother is a result of an assumption that because a page no longer has visibility, hearing its content is no longer desired. Bother is a result of control that is not in the hands of the user and his browser. I have a hard time seeing rationality in any option other than click-to-play. *My* PC is a tool. *I* should be the one to decide if and when to play, and if or when to stop or pause. -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: [whatwg] [OT] type what you mean (was: How to tell when...)
On 2013-08-13 19:56 (GMT) Ian Hickson composed: ...Firefox... ...Firefox... ...Firefox ... Firefox... Please type Gecko unless you mean to exclude SeaMonkey, Camino and other browsers built on Gecko. It's only five letters, thus quicker to type than Firefox's seven, and should help to further the spread of a good habit to replace a pervasive bad one. http://geckoisgecko.org/ https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=334967 -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: [whatwg] Google Feedback on the HTML5 media a11y specifications
On 2011/02/16 00:23 (GMT-0800) Kevin Marks composed: Classic TV required this (especially with overscan), but on modern TV's there is often a letterbox or pillarbox are that captions should go in. On a decent-sized computer screen, there is no real excuse for obscuring the video with the captions rather than putting them underneath or alongside. Pillarboxes are too narrow for reasonable line lengths of legible text. Letterboxes, except during commercials, which are commonly double boxed, are uncommon on 16:9 HDTVs. Decent sized computer screens are uncommon any more in stores. Most are now just miniaturized 16:9 HDTVs, too short for letterboxing to contain captions. -- How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather than silver. Proverbs 16:16 NKJV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: [whatwg] Processing the zoom level - MS extensions to window.screen
On 2010/11/24 18:38 (GMT-0800) Charles Pritchard composed: I've only asked that information be made available. The response from your group seems to be you can't handle the truth! As a non-UA developer spectating since the beginning of this thread, my take on what you're asking for is it would be something destined to be misused to possibly the same widespread degree that happened when web stylists discovered that the CSS spec writers had given them the irrelevantly relative px unit. Before CSS, web designers were unable to make text more than two sizes smaller than the web user's default, which when they went that far, which was more often than not, left contextual sizing all but non-existent. With CSS, authors could not only make text even smaller, but could completely disregard user defaults, eliminating all relativity between defaults and results. I see what you're asking for as yet another back door to turning a user agent into an author agent, giving authors even more undeserved power to vex users, and think those responding to you feel similarly. -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?
On 2008/11/24 16:19 (GMT) Smylers composed: So I still think small works for denoting that something is of smaller importance. I do too, but I don't believe less importance can be the only inference. One could simply want smaller text, without expecting that inference. e.g., just because fine print legalese is called what it is doesn't doesn't necessarily make it unimportant or less important. I'm for keeping small in the spec. -- Love is not easily angered. Love does not demand its own way. 1 Corinthians 13:5 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
