- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 12:57:49 +0100
- To: public-pointer-events@w3.org
With apologies for now cross-posting between mailing list and github issue comments (perhaps we should keep THIS part of the discussion on GH for ease?), does this make sense? https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/134#issuecomment-242912939 (tl;dr: would aligning with USI mean adding an `inverted` property, rather than a completely new pointerType for eraser? seems to me the least disruptive change) On 26/08/2016 21:30, Fleck, Dave wrote: >> I haven't read the doc in detail yet, perhaps it also says something >> about whether or not "hovering eraser >> <https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/issues/134>" should be supported >> as a distinct operation from eraser contact and pen contact while >> holding an eraser button? >> > > For eraser USI follows the “current standard” - there’s an Invert bit > that indicates the tail transducer or erase side switch has been > activated to indicate erase mode. Erasing action takes place when the > tip is pressed while the Invert bit is set. > > Other side switches are reported as they are pressed. > > Of course, the system may “muck about” with this - such as the right > click functionality on Windows where the OS combines the side switch > with the tip switch for right click. > ---------- > "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from > malice."" -- Vernon Schryver > -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Saturday, 27 August 2016 11:58:15 UTC