W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Use of public-webevents to discuss issues with touch events?

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:59:12 -0400
Message-ID: <51756C60.50802@nokia.com>
To: ext Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
CC: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>, Boris Smus <smus@google.com>
Hi Rick - I think using public-webevents as you describe below would be 
OK, so my position is yes, with the proviso that if/when it does because 
problematic (e.g. volume), then we can revisit the decision.

I would like to hear from others, especially Doug.

Doug - WDYT?

-Art

On 4/21/13 11:57 AM, ext Rick Byers wrote:
> Hi,
> We've had a few discussions on this list about the issues people have 
> had with the design of touch events (and sometimes even specific 
> implementation details that are out of scope for the spec).  How do 
> subscribers feel about encouraging that sort of discussion here?  In 
> particular Boris and I are doing a talk at Google I/O about touch 
> input and some of the challenges with it and I want to point people at 
> a public forum for further discussion.
>
> I'd personally find it easier to make better decisions around future 
> directions if we had a more active dialog between UA vendors and 
> site/library developers here.  But if people are concerned the 
> volume/noise would get too high, I'm happy to create a separate 
> mailing list for this sort of discussion.
>
> While I'm here, let me plug a few resources that discuss some of the 
> issues I'd like to see more dialog around:
>
> HTML5Rocks article on touch+mouse: 
> http://www.html5rocks.com/en/mobile/touchandmouse/
>
> G+ post with more details on the touch+mouse problem: 
> https://plus.google.com/115788095648461403871/posts/6RqRCEVbqpC
>
> G+ post with more details on how even empty touch event handlers can 
> be a major perf problem: 
> https://plus.sandbox.google.com/115788095648461403871/posts/cmzrtyBYPQc
>
> Thanks,
>     Rick
>
Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 16:59:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:35 UTC