- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:50:13 -0700
- To: Sangwhan Moon <sangwhan@iki.fi>
- Cc: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFUtAY9c0WLt03tVDEUoiF6rH_QACYKdry2LDbt2yhkDjnJdkA@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Sangwhan. I do think we should do something here, probably combined with enumeration/query APIs (eg. how many touchscreens are there, and how many contacts do each support). It's not clear to me how we'll want to do this in full - eg. a deviceId on the PointerEvent and then additional APIs that operate on device IDs, or an API for looking up the device ID for a pointer ID. So my preference would be to defer to v2, but I don't have strong feelings about it. For the WiiRemote scenario, would you expect it would use a custom pointerType, and would each 'device' have exactly one pointer? If so, then it seems like an app would need to know that for your pointerType, each pointer is a distinct user (in contrast to touch for example), and having deviceId wouldn't add much, would it? Multi-user multi-pointer input would definitely be a problem though. Or maybe the problem is that you'd want sites to work without knowing about Wii remotes in particular - if so I'm not sure how that would work. Rick On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Sangwhan Moon <sangwhan@iki.fi> wrote: > Just to clarify - sorry for not being explicit, this is not a LC comment - > nor do I think this should be a v1 showstopper. The added complexity just > to get the device ID right on all platforms is probably not worth the > hassle to be forced into v1. > > The specific use case I had in mind was for HTML games on a console (or > PC, TV) - as I've seen a [1] workaround implementation possibly due to the > very reason that there wasn't a standard that could be readily used. > > (Although as with all software "let's do it later" also tends end up being > "let's not do it ever", but let's imagine that won't happen) > > The [2] Gamepad API has this concept - although it's a bit more complex - > but it shares the idea. > > -- > Sangwhan Moon > > [1] http://my.opera.com/Vital/blog/the-wii-remote-api > [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gamepad/raw-file/default/gamepad.html > > > On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Rick Byers wrote: > > > Sangwhan, can you elaborate a bit on the scenario you see this being > useful in? Adding a deviceId to the event (or some other mechanism to > correlate pointers to devices and get information about those devices) > seems like it could be handy, but I'm wondering if this is something we'd > really want to try to get into v1. > > > > No existing input API has this, right? Are there examples of real-world > sites that are hurting as a result? > > > > Thanks, > > Rick > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Scott González < > scott.gonzalez@gmail.com (mailto:scott.gonzalez@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > I like the idea of having a device id associated with each event. I've > also heard requests to be able to listen for when a device is > connected/disconnected. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com(mailto: > smoon@opera.com)> wrote: > > > > In the specification as of today, there is no reliable way to > detect/associate > > > > input from multiple users - as PointerEvent.pointerId is the closest > thing that > > > > can be used to detect such a thing, which sadly doesn't guarantee a > reliable > > > > pointerId to user mapping. > > > > > > > > I see two approaches for resolving this: > > > > > > > > 1) Re-define PointerEvent.pointerId in a way that: > > > > - How indices are generated and reserved for non-mice is normative, > so it > > > > can heuristically map to a specific input device. > > > > - Indices are not recyclable. > > > > > > > > (and possibly add the concept of "available pointers", or redefine > "active pointers") > > > > > > > > 2) Add a new deviceId member in the PointerEvent interface. > > > > > > > > (and possibly add methods to enumerate available devices) > > > > > > > > I'm not sure which would be the best way to handle this, although I > am a bit > > > > skeptical about the first idea as detecting the device will possibly > leave corner > > > > cases where the heuristics may fail. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sangwhan Moon, Opera Software ASA > > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 20:51:03 UTC