Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-ui-4] Change the pointer cursor to indicate any interactive element.

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Pointer Cursor wrangling`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Add sentence "Authors should use pointer on links and may use on other interactive elements" To UI4`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Pointer Cursor wrangling<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1936#issuecomment-419616109<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I think we have strong consensus that we do NOT want to change UA requirements as to what they should do with pointer cursor. But there is a fairly large contingent of authors that think this is an author requirement and if you do pointer on anything other then link it's invalid.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Large part of web does things like pointer on button<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Is there room for a note or some wording to say UA do links and links only, but authors can put it in other places<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Last comment in issue TabAtkins suggested the sentence [reads]<br>
&lt;astearns> this value SHOULD be used on links, and CAN be used on other interactive elements to indicate 'clickability'<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Is that sufficient? Acceptable?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: replace can with may but yes<br>
&lt;dael> fremy: not thrilled but don't want this thread open for 250000 years and this coming back up all the time. Still wrong because people have been misusing something and people pointed out we're misusing it and now we have to change requirements because we pointed that out<br>
&lt;dael> fremy: It doesn't make sense. Either we say it should be used and change UA style sheet. Why say can if we don't do it? I have mixed feelings. I won't object to a may. It's wrong, but I won't object<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: That browsers can't change their behavior doesn't have baring on how a lot fo heavy usage leads to the value's usage. Legacy constraint on browsers shouldn't constrain us here. THis is about matching author expections. People expect this to work in a particular way.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Objections to adding the proposed sentece: this value SHOULD be used on links, and MAY be used on other interactive elements to indicate 'clickability' to UI 4<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: the pointer value SHOULD be used on links, and MAY be used on other interactive elements to indicate 'clickability'<br>
&lt;tantek> +0 sounds ok, still reading<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Should this be "authors should use" unstead of "should be used"<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: It's on UAs.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Do we want to say UA may apply to others?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: That's why I started with a can<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Is sentence meant for author and ua or just author?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Both author and UA. I don't think it's bad if a browser changes to pointer on clickable things<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: We already agreed to UA must apply pointer on hyperlinks<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: more passive voice this cursor should be used could be included without cancelling the must<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I don't object to current. If it's meant as vague I'm okay with vague<br>
&lt;tantek> ok with CAN or MAY<br>
&lt;tantek> though slight preference for MAY<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: Good to be clear who requirement is on<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Not vauge, it applies everywhere<br>
&lt;tantek> also going to note for the record that no one followed up with tests as I requested last year in the issue :P (unless I missed something? searched whole issue for "test")<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Have an explicit requirement on UAs. Another sentence could be authors should us it on any other element that behaves as a link and may use it to indicate clickability<br>
&lt;dael> florian: There's no UAs must not<br>
&lt;tantek> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1936#issuecomment-346420266<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Exactly. No negative about UAs applying to other elements<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Like that better<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Does reduce confusion<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Object to scoping this sentence to jsut authors?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Proposal:": Authors should use pointer on links and may use on other interactive elements<br>
&lt;tantek> no objection<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Obj?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Add sentence "Authors should use pointer on links and may use on other interactive elements" To UI4<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1936#issuecomment-420722704 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2018 17:00:21 UTC