> It’s not a bad standard just because you personally struggle to understand it.
I'm not as bad at this as you are, I've explained why it's bad several times without a reference to my understanding, but you fail to understand that primitive explanation, so now think others also can't.
> Lots of things have historical names, especially in computer graphics, that are now standard.
So? Lots of things also change. You forgot to finish your thought.
> How do you guarantee such a thing?
I don't, I use an API that does
> Please define one as such that accounts for all display types with appropriate verbiage.
Your favorite term doesn't do that.
> I’ll personally advocate for it in the film industry if you can come up with a term that is better than what the entirety of cinematic history has been able to think of.
Oh no, that's a recipe for disaster, please stick to worshipping historic standards, don't ruin a tiny chance of progress!
> Apple only claim that it’s unobstructed by their specific display edges and overlays but it doesn’t account for other display concerns. Hence safe area is still the most intuitive name.
Apple only claim that unobstructed API is unobstructed by their specific display edges and overlays but it doesn’t account for other display concerns. Hence unobstructed area is still the most intuitive name because it still is the closest to the reality, and because "safe" is still not safe, so offers no benefit.
> Would you also like to go and argue with people about alpha channels?
They’re not sacred but changing them gives a much lower payoff than the pain of changing.
None of your suggestions actually improve the situation. They’d just not scale the way you think they would to other display types when you query the safe area.
For example, Apple specifically calls out why they use the safe area term to correspond to different display types
> In tvOS, the safe area also includes the screen’s overscan insets, which represent the area covered by the screen’s bezel.
Unobstructed is longer, and provides no extra information of value. Go work in a visual industry and see how long before you get tired of saying title unobstructed and action unobstructed.
Again, you’re coming at this form the perspective of a lay person in the realm of displays and getting angered that the term isn’t immediately intuitive to you personally, rather than the entire industry that has a standard term that they use and have for many decades.
I'm not as bad at this as you are, I've explained why it's bad several times without a reference to my understanding, but you fail to understand that primitive explanation, so now think others also can't.
> Lots of things have historical names, especially in computer graphics, that are now standard.
So? Lots of things also change. You forgot to finish your thought.
> How do you guarantee such a thing?
I don't, I use an API that does
> Please define one as such that accounts for all display types with appropriate verbiage.
Your favorite term doesn't do that.
> I’ll personally advocate for it in the film industry if you can come up with a term that is better than what the entirety of cinematic history has been able to think of.
Oh no, that's a recipe for disaster, please stick to worshipping historic standards, don't ruin a tiny chance of progress!
> Apple only claim that it’s unobstructed by their specific display edges and overlays but it doesn’t account for other display concerns. Hence safe area is still the most intuitive name.
Apple only claim that unobstructed API is unobstructed by their specific display edges and overlays but it doesn’t account for other display concerns. Hence unobstructed area is still the most intuitive name because it still is the closest to the reality, and because "safe" is still not safe, so offers no benefit.
> Would you also like to go and argue with people about alpha channels?
What, are they sacred?