I don't think "absolute" and "relative" clearly convey the difference. If anything, I would guess that absolute-lighten($color, 40%) would set the lightness of $color to 40%.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Richard Aday <[email protected]>wrote: > How about providing the context in the name of the mixin: > > absolute-lighten > relative-lighten > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Nathan Weizenbaum <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm not willing to compromise on usability and intuitiveness for the sake > of > > powerful-but-obscure features. Sure, it may be easy for you or me or > someone > > else reading this thread in detail to understand the difference between > > lighten($color) and lighten($color, true). But what about people reading > > your stylesheet later? What about users who want scaling behavior but > don't > > know it? > > > > I think we can do better than lighten($color, true). I think we can come > up > > with a way of expressing this that makes it at least somewhat clear > what's > > going on for someone who hasn't read the documentation. And I'm certainly > > not willing to add a sub-par API in the meantime. > > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Eric Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Nathan, > >> > >> I agree but have a hard time seeing the issue when it comes to changes > >> that don't affect default behavior. Half of CSS3 doesn't make sense > >> unless you read the spec in detail. If you don't get it, don't use it. > >> > >> It also seems like a funny argument when it is clear that people don't > >> grok the way it is now. > >> > >> Keeping default behavior the same, and adding an optional argument for > >> those who do read the manual seems like a great step to me. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Aug 30, 1:29 am, Nathan Weizenbaum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > The problem is I don't think any of these names adequately convey to a > >> > casual user who may not have read the documentation what the > difference > >> > is > >> > between the two functions. > >> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Chris Yates > >> > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The PHamlP functions did behave differently - that was my > >> > > misunderstanding; having come across this thread they now behave as > >> > > Sass. > >> > > >> > > I chose "absolute" to describe the way things happen as the amount > of > >> > > change is absolute irrespective of the colour value (i.e. if > >> > > lightness($colour) == 60%, lighten($colour, 30%) gives > >> > > $lightness($colour) == 30%, and if lightness($colour) == 70%, > >> > > lighten($colour, 30%) gives $lightness($colour) == 40%), and > >> > > "relative" where the amount of change depends on the original colour > >> > > value, (i.e. if lightness($colour) == 60%, lighten($colour, 30%, > >> > > 'true;) gives $lightness($colour) == 40%). But I'm certainly not > going > >> > > to get hung up about the name; "proportional", "dependant" are > another > >> > > couple of suggestions - must be loads more. > >> > > >> > > On Aug 29, 11:12 pm, Nathan Weizenbaum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > Are you saying that the phamlp Sass functions behave differently > >> > > > than the > >> > > > standard ones? If so, that's a bug in the phamlp implementation > and > >> > > should > >> > > > be fixed. > >> > > >> > > > I don't believe that the word "relative" will adequately > communicate > >> > > > to > >> > > > users what the difference between the two functions is. The > current > >> > > behavior > >> > > > is relative: lighten($color, 30%) makes $color 30% lighter, > relative > >> > > > to > >> > > its > >> > > > current lightness. Thus, neither adding a parameter named > $relative > >> > > > nor > >> > > > adding versions of the function named "relative" will make it > clear > >> > > > to > >> > > the > >> > > > user what's going on. > >> > > >> > > > Triggering different behavior based on units and magnitude of the > >> > > parameter > >> > > > is even more opaque to the user, especially given that decimal > >> > > > values and > >> > > > percentages are conceptually very similar. > >> > > >> > > > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Chris Yates > >> > > > <[email protected] > >> > > >wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > Dam - just released PHamlP V3 and guess what? Yep - did the > colour > >> > > > > functions as relative. > >> > > >> > > > > Two suggestions to cope with absolute and relative adjustment: > >> > > > > 1. add a SassBoolean as a 3rd optional parameter to darken(), > >> > > > > lighten(), saturate(), and desaturate(). If set true the > >> > > > > adjustment is > >> > > > > a relative adjustment, if not given or set false it is an > absolute > >> > > > > adjustment. That should mean existing code behaves as currently. > >> > > > > 2. add darken_rel(), lighten_rel(), etc. > >> > > >> > > > > For opacify() and transparentize() I think the answer is just > look > >> > > > > at > >> > > > > the adjustment value. If it's unitless and between 0 and 1 it's > >> > > > > absolute, a percentage means it's relative. > >> > > >> > > > > On Aug 26, 9:57 am, Nathan Weizenbaum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > > *Blade*: The summary: Sass/CSS use the word "saturation" in a > >> > > different > >> > > > > way > >> > > > > > than Photoshop, as Eric said. When you change the lightness in > >> > > > > > Sass, > >> > > it > >> > > > > > doesn't change the CSS saturation, but it does change the > >> > > > > > Photoshop > >> > > > > > saturation, because they're actually different definitions of > >> > > > > "saturation". > >> > > >> > > > > > You shouldn't have to use mix(). darken() actually does darken > >> > > > > > the > >> > > color; > >> > > > > if > >> > > > > > that's what you're looking for, use darken(). Certainly don't > >> > > > > > use > >> > > mix() > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > get closer to the photoshop results, because it won't (or if > it > >> > > > > > does > >> > > > > it'll > >> > > > > > be by accident). > >> > > >> > > > > > If someone's bored and wants to make a hsb plugin for Sass, > tat > >> > > > > > would > >> > > be > >> > > > > > pretty neat. > >> > > >> > > > > > *Eric*: If you can come up with a better name for the scaling > >> > > versions of > >> > > > > > the functions, I'd be happy to have them in core. The problem > is > >> > > finding > >> > > > > a > >> > > > > > name that clearly conveys that it does the same thing but > >> > > differently. > >> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:30 PM, BladeBronson < > >> > > [email protected] > >> > > > > >wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > > In my examples, I can see that SASS reports the same > >> > > > > > > saturation > >> > > value > >> > > > > > > for a color before and after it is darkened, but Photoshop > >> > > > > > > reports > >> > > a > >> > > > > > > difference. I barely understand why (grin), but it doesn't > >> > > > > > > matter > >> > > to > >> > > > > > > me. The SASS team has given this more thought than I have > and > >> > > > > > > I'm > >> > > sure > >> > > > > > > it makes sense for darken() to work the way that it does. > I'm > >> > > > > > > able > >> > > to > >> > > > > > > achieve the colors that I'm expecting by using mix() with a > >> > > > > > > degree > >> > > of > >> > > > > > > black instead of darken(), so I'm all set! > >> > > >> > > > > -- > >> > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > >> > > Groups > >> > > > > "Haml" group. > >> > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> > > > > > >> > > > > [email protected]<haml%[email protected]> > <haml%[email protected]<haml%[email protected]> > >< > >> > > > >> > > haml%[email protected]<haml%[email protected]> > <haml%[email protected]<haml%[email protected]> > > > >> > > >. > >> > > > > For more options, visit this group at > >> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en. > >> > > >> > > -- > >> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> > > Groups > >> > > "Haml" group. > >> > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> > > [email protected]<haml%[email protected]> > >> > > <haml%[email protected]<haml%[email protected]> > >. > >> > > For more options, visit this group at > >> > >http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en. > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "Haml" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> [email protected] <haml%[email protected]> > . > >> For more options, visit this group at > >> http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en. > >> > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Haml" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] <haml%[email protected]>. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > -Richard Aday > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Haml" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <haml%[email protected]>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
