- From: Patrick H. Lauke via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 10:32:53 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
At an absolute minimum - if I simply can't convince the working group that the fundamental idea of a *primary* vs *other stuff* input mechanism hierarchy is inappropriate - I would move towards having a strong note in the spec as outlined above ``` Designing a page that relies on hovering or accurate pointing only because `hover` or `pointer` indicate that (whatever the OS/UA decided is) the primary input mechanism has these capabilities, is likely to result in a poor experience (as it ignores the fact that secondary input mechanisms may be available that lack these specific capabilities). ``` and a renaming of "Rare" to read "Secondary" - this term still implies some hierarchical relationship which I don't buy into, but at least it's not a loaded term that contains further value judgements about how often/not often the type of input will be used. -- GitHub Notification of comment by patrickhlauke Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/690#issuecomment-259101884 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2016 10:33:01 UTC