Skip to content
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

Smooth transitions between ISDs should not be preferred #485

Closed
nigelmegitt opened this issue Nov 7, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

Smooth transitions between ISDs should not be preferred #485

nigelmegitt opened this issue Nov 7, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@nigelmegitt
Copy link
Contributor

The note beneath the [associate region] algorithm states:

Where an implementation is able to detect significant similarity between two adjacent synchronic document instances, DOCinterN DOCinterN−1, then it is preferred that the implementation make the transition between presenting the two instances as smooth as possible ...

The use of the term "preferred" is territory-specific and not culturally accepted globally, so it should either be removed or scoped to the places where it is true. For example in the US smooth scrolling is preferred, whereas in the UK jump scrolling is preferred, and those preferences are strong active preferences.

I propose to change the wording to: "..., then the implementation may apply processing to make the transition between presenting the two instances as smooth as possible..." to remove the preference.

I suspect @mikedo could be particularly interested in this, based on my recollection of previous conversations.

@skynavga
Copy link
Collaborator

This note comes from TTML1 without change, so this issue should be moved to TTML1 repo, and an entry added to #358.

@nigelmegitt
Copy link
Contributor Author

nigelmegitt commented Dec 24, 2017

Done, this is w3c/ttml1/#304. It seems pointless to close this issue and add something to another issue, so leaving this as is.

@skynavga
Copy link
Collaborator

skynavga commented Dec 25, 2017

Closed, as this is now a duplicate of #358.

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

2 participants