Re: maxTouchPoints on platforms that have less granular information

That looks good to me as well.


On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote:

> That sounds perfect, thanks Jacob!
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>wrote:
>
>> Given a platform that has less granular information than required, I
>> think your approach (minimum guaranteed) is the best.  I'm OK with adding a
>> note. But a non-normative note cannot use RFC2119 keywords, like "should."
>> [1]  Here's an alternative:
>>
>> "Note: maxTouchPoints is often used to ensure that the interaction model
>> of the content can be recognized by the current hardware. UI affordances
>> can be provided to users with less capable hardware. On platforms where the
>> precise number of touch points is not known, the minimum number guaranteed
>> to be recognized is provided. Therefore, it is possible for the number of
>> recognized touch points to exceed the value of maxTouchPoints."
>>
>> -Jacob
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents/#conformance
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote:
>> I just learned that Android doesn't have an API to report the exact
>> number of touch points supported.  Instead it has a few levels (1, 2+, 5+).
>>  See
>> http://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/pm/PackageManager.html#FEATURE_TOUCHSCREEN
>> .
>>
>> Should we consider adding a non-normative note or something suggesting
>> how such platforms should implement this API?  Eg:
>>
>> Note: some platforms may not report the precise number of touch points
>> available.  On such platforms, this API should return the minimum
>> guaranteed number of points that an application can rely on being
>> available.  For example, on Android systems
>> reporting FEATURE_TOUCHSCREEN_MULTITOUCH_DISTINCT (but not
>> FEATURE_TOUCHSCREEN_MULTITOUCH_JAZZHAND) this should return 2.
>>
>> I.e. this API should be used to control the addition of additional UI to
>> compensate for the lack of sufficient touch points (such as showing zoom
>> controls on a single-finger device), not as a limit on the number of touch
>> points that should actually be handled by the application.
>>
>> Sorry I wasn't aware of this as a potential issue sooner.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>
>