Skip to content

[mediaqueries-4] interaction media features (any-pointer, etc) still at risk? #1989

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
myakura opened this issue Nov 15, 2017 · 7 comments
Closed
Assignees

Comments

@myakura
Copy link
Contributor

myakura commented Nov 15, 2017

I found that the hover, any-hover, pointer, and any-pointer media features are marked as at risk.

The following features are at-risk, and may be dropped during the CR period:

But my quick testing and caniuse show that they're actually supported in 3 engines (Blink, EdgeHTML, WebKit).
https://caniuse.com/#feat=css-media-interaction

Mozilla sent an intent to implement last month, so hopefully they'll be well supported pretty soon.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/WhXB19qGVkI

So, I'm not sure why they're still marked as so. Are there other reasons besides implementations?

@myakura myakura added the mediaqueries-4 Current Work label Nov 15, 2017
@danburzo
Copy link

danburzo commented Feb 1, 2019

Update: Interaction Media Queries are available starting with Firefox 64!

@bathos
Copy link
Contributor

bathos commented Oct 16, 2019

I’ve found these valuable repeatedly in different contexts. Hover MQs in particular can be the key to taking interactions over the line from ‘accessible, but not optimal for all devices’ to ‘friendly and intuitive for (hopefully) everyone’. They’re also supported in every major browser. I’m guessing the warnings are out of date. It would be a relief if they can be removed.

(Meta thing: it’s great to know about ‘at risk’ features, but I’ve seen devs choose not to use appropriate features because of that notice before, interpreting it as an indication that the API isn’t reliable enough. Maybe that’s a rare thing, I dunno, but since non-adoption can be a factor in at-risk-ness, I’ve wondered if they ever become self-fulfilling prophecies...)

@frivoal
Copy link
Collaborator

frivoal commented Oct 16, 2019

(meta thing: yes, it is a known problem that labeling things at risk, which is meant to be a W3C process thing only, irrelevant to users or implementer or anybody who's not tasked with transitioning specs to various maturity levels, ends up being misinterpreted as some kind of warning sign, and makes people shy away from the feature. That's really unfortunate.)

@frivoal frivoal self-assigned this May 28, 2020
@frivoal
Copy link
Collaborator

frivoal commented May 28, 2020

Agenda+ to propose dropping the at-risk marker on these features.

@hiikezoe
Copy link

hiikezoe commented Jun 3, 2020

As far as I know there is no APIs on Windows to tell which pointer device is the primary one or not. Is there?

@hober
Copy link
Member

hober commented Jun 9, 2020

WebKit implements any-hover and any-pointer; we support removing the at-risk markers.

@css-meeting-bot
Copy link
Member

The CSS Working Group just discussed mediaqueries-4] interaction media features (any-pointer, etc) still at risk?, and agreed to the following:

  • RESOLVED: remove at-risk on these media features
The full IRC log of that discussion <dael> Topic: mediaqueries-4] interaction media features (any-pointer, etc) still at risk?
<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/1989
<dael> florian: Limited tests, but they are implemented in multiple browsers. I suspect we should remove at-risk label since people mis-read it as "please don't use" If it's impl at-risk is no longer justified
<dael> astearns: Obj to remove at-risk on these media features
<dael> RESOLVED: remove at-risk on these media features

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants