Retitle some Focus Areas to stop confusion

[jensimmons]

Currently several of the Focus Area names listed on the dashboard are confusing people.

For example, it's easy to get the impression that neither Safari nor Firefox have any support for IndexDB, when both browsers shipped it long ago. I've seen similar confusion about CSS attr().

Also, it's inconsistent how some CSS API are prefixed "CSS" and others are not. Plus, it's not called "JS Navigation API" or "HTML Dialogs". I'm not sure how CSS became necessary to call out as something different.

Here's a list of proposed changes:

• CSS anchor positioning —> Anchor Positioning
• CSS attr() —> Advanced attr() since attr() is already supported in browsers, and this is about adding advanced capabilities
• CSS contrast-color() —> contrast-color()
• CSS shape() —> shape()
• Dialogs and popovers —> Dialog & popover additions
• IndexedDB —> getAllRecords() for IndexedDB

Maybe the CSS functions that need to be lowercase since its code could continue to be prefixed with CSS. But to be consistent with Media pseudo-classes, Scroll-driven animations, Scroll snap and more, Anchor Positioning can drop the "CSS". Same with Advanced attr().

Changing the names to Advanced attr(), Dialog & popover additions, and getAllRecords() for IndexedDB make it clear what these are — and what's not included.

[captainbrosset]

Currently several of the Focus Area names listed on the dashboard are confusing people.

Are you able to share any evidence of the user confusion? That might help gauge the severity and needed response.

IndexedDB —> getAllRecords() for IndexedDB

I support this change, I do agree that IndexedDB, on its own, is way to general.

CSS anchor positioning —> Anchor Positioning
CSS attr() —> Advanced attr() since attr() is already supported in browsers, and this is about adding advanced capabilities
CSS contrast-color() —> contrast-color()
CSS shape() —> shape()
Dialogs and popovers —> Dialog & popover additions

I'm less worried about these names. I tend to think that the benefits we'd get out of changing them is probably not worth the trouble of actually doing the change, and the potential confusion when people notice mismatches between the dashboard and the various launch blog posts.

[jensimmons]

These are definitely less important. They are just for the sake of consistency.

• CSS anchor positioning —> Anchor Positioning
• CSS contrast-color() —> contrast-color()
• CSS shape() —> shape()

These I believe are important due to clearly communicate to developers what's included — and not make it sound like the Focus Area is about something else.

• IndexedDB —> getAllRecords() for IndexedDB
• Dialogs and popovers —> Dialog & popover additions
• CSS attr() —> Advanced attr()

[jensimmons]

I just learned from someone that @captainbrosset emailed last week about another name change. He said:

I was looking at the tests for the "CSS shape()" focus area and I realized that the focus are name and description don't really match the tests.

Current name: CSS shape()
Current description (source): The shape() CSS function creates shapes with a series of commands like line, move, and curve. It can be used with clip-path and shape-outside.

However, the tests include cases for the circle(), ellipse(), inset(), path(), polygon(), rect(), and xywh() functions, in addition to the cases for the shape() function.

Should we rename the focus area?

Proposed new name: CSS shape functions
Proposed new description: The circle(), ellipse(), inset(), path(), polygon(), rect(), shape(), and xywh() CSS functions create shapes for use with clip-path and shape-outside.

Ideally the names should have been more deeply considered before launch of the dashboard, but it's not too late to improve them now. Leaving them all year with confusion is worse, imho.

[jensimmons]

Examples of confusion:

Browsers Are Finally Catching Up (Interop 2026) — Syntax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVIeyRE6zLU

They say:

Actually, Safari only has a 26 percent on dialogues and popovers? Oh, I didn't realize that…

His tone of voice is "I'm upset that Safari is failing so badly, I thought they had support for these features. Wow, turns out they don't."

We have support for dialog. We have support for popovers. We do not have support for specifically the new bits added to Interop 2026. But the title of the focus area does not make it seem that way.

The same dynamic happened when Kevin Powell reviewed Interop 2026. He was confused by the focus area titles, and thought, oh, this low score means this browser doesn't have any support for this feature. Dang! I thought they did. Clearly I remember wrong. Guess they haven't shipped it yet.

Interop 2026 is here! — General Musings with Kevin Powell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYRy1i1BYi8

Messaging matters. Interop is a great project, but it should measure feature support accurately. Not post test pass rates as if they are for a different feature set then what is actually being tested.