W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2012

Re: position: pointer

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:04:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CABZUbM01SEQe2K3ApWAG00kYRbRyB=naDj-CfLoep3N0kzfuGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On 10/11/12, Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> wrote:
> I won't go into how bad accessibility/UX I think those are, but it's a
> valid use case.
>
> That said, stationary tooltips (especially ones that contain interactive UI
> elements) are better placed relative to the element they are tooltips of
> (rather than relative to mouse position), and can already be achieved in
> pure markup, I made a small jsfiddle to demonstrate this [1].
>
That's a different positioning scheme. It's a perfectly fine scheme
for some cases (a small actuator). But it's not what was asked for:
Positioning the object by the pointer (imagine it's a context menu).
Also for tooltip(s), just one tooltip element is preferable.

For a large actuator, the tooltip won't be near the cursor. This new
example demonstrates something other than what I asked for, and that
was to display the tooltip (imagine it could be a panel, context menu,
etc) relative to the pointer.

ISTM that we have a slight miscommunication and what was said was
buried. Point-by-point discussion can help facilitate better
comminication (see also: http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html )
(though it doesn't guarantee it).

Aside: Regarding the JSFiddle example, I noticed mootools was
included. The example works without it. And now I see they try and
force it on you; I see MooTools selected by default.
http://jsfiddle.net/ I can't any good reason for doing that. Perhaps
some sort of mootools dogma; religiosity combined with marketing ploy
in collusion with JsFiddle, As if users need to be pressured to use
such things.

Regards,
-- 
Garrett
Twitter: @xkit
personx.tumblr.com
Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 17:04:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT