my apologies - the 'context' i referred to is fully out of the hands of the designer - it is the browsing environment, determined via a mixture of user-agent information, feature detection and media queries...
On 16 September 2012 16:54, <wsg@webstandardsgroup.org> wrote: > ********************************************************************* > WEB STANDARDS GROUP MAIL LIST DIGEST > ********************************************************************* > > > From: Mathew Robertson <mathew.blair.robert...@gmail.com> > Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 12:01:42 +1000 > Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: WSG Digest > > Part of the <img> vs <picture> discussion, has been to define what features > are actually required of this element. Primarily this has come down to: > > a) responsive handling of bandwidth vs image-quality (aka bandwidth vs > file-size) > b) pixel density of display devices > c) art direction > > [ Did I miss any? ] > > Breaking them down: > > a) bandwidth is completely out of control of the website designer... (eg: > 3G bandwidth varies x10 with time) so there is next to no reason for markup > (HTML or CSS) to be related to bandwidth. If the designer chose to use > JPEG2000, SVG, HDF or some other tileable/scalable format, then changes the > scope somewhat, as the browser could implement "range requests" to the > webserver to indicate which block of data would suit its currently > available bandwidth. > > b) Pixel density depends completely on the target device... again outside > of the designers control (unless you want to design for every version of > every device in existence). And again the best a designer can do is offer > multiple images. In which case, srcset seems like a nice way to go, as > it leverage's an existing element thus allowing backwards compatibility. > > c) The art-direction aspect can be solved using variations of "clip(...)" > combined with range-requests. > > An extra mention... the "media: max-width" variations are really not all > that useful (unless you are targeting an exact screen size + density)... my > eyes work well enough so that I can read small text, so would happily like > to use tablet-width layouts on a small screen. > > > The idea of "context" would seem appropriate... just need to remember that > some of that context is not in the hands of the designer. > > Just my $0.02... > cheers, > Mathew Robertson > > On 14 September 2012 17:03, Dominic Hey <dominic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > To paraphrase your own words.. if "an <img src=...> is descriptive of the > > target image" then srcset would be descriptive of the *set* of target > > images, no styling information there. Where I would be more inclined to > > agree with you would be the "media" attribute, however if you abstract > the > > essence of a media query it is not, in itself, concerned with styling. It > > is a conditional test. > > > > Perhaps we need a fourth element - context - to join the separate > channels > > of content, behaviour and appearance? > > > > > > On 14 September 2012 16:43, <wsg@webstandardsgroup.org> wrote: > > > >> ********************************************************************* > >> WEB STANDARDS GROUP MAIL LIST DIGEST > >> ********************************************************************* > >> > >> > >> From: Mathew Robertson <mathew.blair.robert...@gmail.com> > >> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:53:34 +1000 > >> Subject: responsive images > >> > >> In this week's links for light reading, there is a reference to > responsive > >> images, eg: > >> > >> http://www.netmagazine.com/features/road-responsive-images > >> > >> I'd be interested to hear this lists' opinion on the proposed syntax. > >> > >> > >> To me this screams of putting styling information, into the document. > For > >> comparison, we now use media queries to change font sizes and element > >> locations, based on viewport size and/or direction. I would have > expected > >> responsive images to be implemented in a similar manner, not with new > html > >> tags. > >> > >> In other words, an <img src=...> is descriptive of the target image, and > >> we > >> add alt-attributes to describe it as such. Simply showing a higher > >> quality image of the same thing, shouldn't change the document > structure. > >> > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> Mathew Robertson > >> > >> > >> > >> ************************************************************** > >> Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > >> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > >> ************************************************************** > >> > >> > >> > > > > ******************************************************************* > > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > > ******************************************************************* > > > > > ************************************************************** > Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > ************************************************************** > > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
