Re: Sangwhan's ACTION-63: Make a proposal re the keyboard compat issue

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 at 22:38, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> On 03/03/2014 15:54, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> > Sangwhan et al,
> > 
> > just wondering if
> > is now actually addressed by the (now closed)
> > ? Or was there a
> > nuance to 63 that I missed?
> > 
> > P
> Sangwhan, just a quick heads-up on this...noting that my action is now 
> going to make it into the next update as per yesterday's call
> Does this resolve your action 
> as well?

I sincerely apologize for the completely dropping off the radar - TL:DR; version of the answer
is that it looks good to me. Thanks a lot of following up on this.

Long version of the answer is that we still don't have a conclusion what the "next spatnav"
will look like, and that affects what to say quite a lot (as in, if it's a magnetic virtual cursor
it should behave more mouse like, but if it's like old spatnav then it's a bit fuzzy what to do)

The changes leave it open for the implementors to do whatever as long as they don't end
up shooting their own foot, so this is good compromise moving forward.

It also covers my recent question (that I never managed to ask to the list) which is how to
deal with AT generated interactions, so I'm a happy camper.


Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 15:15:41 UTC