On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:57 AM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote: > Most websites do not explicitly need touch events, but only mouse events > (with the compatibility mouse events). So in the same vein, perhaps > document.disableTouchEvents should be added. > I think this is categorically untrue for the class of "websites" the blink team is focused on enabling (those with rich input interactions, i.e. material design). The compatibility mouse events are useful only for detecting a tap. Sites whose only input interaction is tapping are not our concern here (those are typically simple documents and already work well enough). The simplest common example is an image carousel where you swipe between images. These are extremely common on the web today and absolutely require listening for touch events. > ☆*PhistucK* > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> > wrote: > >> On 16/01/2015 16:46, PhistucK wrote: >> >>> These compatibility events can be considered as the 'legacy Pointer >>> Events'. You can rely on them instead of registering events for every >>> pointer inputs. >>> >> >> Problem is that the compat mouse events are not equivalent. For instance, >> you cannot track finger movements by using mousemove compat events, as >> moving the the finger on the touchscreen simply will not generate them. >> >> The short term way of improving this would be to add a property on >>> compatibility mouse events that regards them as simulated >>> >> >> This is being discussed separately, but yes. >> >> and the long >>> term of improving this would be Pointer Events. >>> >> >> As Google and Apple have indicated that they will not be implementing >> PE...this discussion is about improving touch events for now. I agree that >> PE are the way forward though for these scenarios. >> >> >> P >> -- >> 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 Friday, 16 January 2015 17:10:20 UTC