W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2010

RE: Haptics CSS extension proposal

From: Belov, Charles <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:41:51 -0700
Message-ID: <E17F75B6E86AE842A57B4534F82D03769C2B74@MTAMAIL.muni.sfgov.org>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
> On Jun 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, <kim.1.gronholm@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
> > Regarding the use of the appearance property to specify 
> tactile feedback: Clearly the tactile feedback is a new 
> thing, and what is the best way for enabling developers to 
> define tactile feedback for web elements, is not a simple 
> question. 
(snip)
> > 
> > Currently the key use case is to be able to create custom 
> JS controls that have the same tactile feedback than native 
> controls of the underlying platform. This is independent from 
> the appearance, would you agree? Same goes for links: It 
> should be possible to implement a custom control that feels 
> like a link without actually being a traditional link.
> 
> I don't know. Currently, there are visual and behavior 
> qualities of some OS controls that are hard or impossible to 
> recreate using just CSS and DIVs, even without haptics. I 
> think it would certainly be reasonable to have haptics in 
> JavaScript, and since you are talking about JS controls, that 
> would seem to be enough (use touch events to trigger them).

The issue to me is that if each website developer develops their 
own haptic vocabulary (checkbox expressed as this sensation, 
link as that sensation), site visitors would need to learn a new 
haptic "dialect" for each website (much as they do now visually 
for sites that mess with default link appearance).

Ideally, the browser manufacturers would agree on a default 
haptic behavior, and sites would only override those if there 
was a specific good reason.  On the other hand, a haptics-using 
site visitor might want to override certain haptic properties 
in their personal style sheet.

Hope this helps,
Charles Belov
SFMTA Webmaster
 
Received on Friday, 25 June 2010 17:46:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:28 GMT