We can't assume all (or even most) users will read the documentation. Even if they were to go off and look up everything they didn't recognize, though, it would be far preferable to have self-explanatory function names.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Richard Aday <[email protected]>wrote: > Wouldn't documentation fix that? > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Nathan Weizenbaum <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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] <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.
