W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Some filter effects specification review comments

From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:51:12 -0700
To: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
CC: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA267C04.9837%vhardy@adobe.com>


On 6/21/11 4:46 PM, "Erik Dahlstrom" <ed@opera.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:34:55 +0200, Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On 6/20/11 2:09 PM, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have any specific use-cases in mind where hit-testing would need
>>> to be modified for the effects of a complex filter?
>>
>> An extreme case would be a filter that totally wipes out rendering
>> (feFlood for example). Another one would be feGaussianBlur where it is
>> not
>> clear (so to speak) what the actual hit would be if we do not do
>>anything
>> about it. feOffset is another one that could get really confusing
>>because
>> of how close the rendering is to what it was before filtering.
>>
>> Vincent
>
>How is this different from say a span element that has a text-shadow that
> 
>is somewhere far off?
>
><style>
>#test { text-shadow: 100px 0 0 blue }
></style>
><span id="test" onclick="alert('clicked')">Click here</span>

In the case of a shadow, the text is still showing, so you can click on it
and it behaves as expected. In the case of feOffset, there may be no
indication at all as to where the actual sensitive area is.

I get your point that it can already confusing to click on the shadow and
not see anything happen.

Vincent.
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 13:52:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 June 2011 13:52:00 GMT