W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Mouse Lock

From: Vincent Scheib <scheib@google.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:54:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK-EfXn_9xCBXJcW4TE_1r==wqR-T1jOkJgwkcuM+rcM5AnNFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Yuzhu Shen <yzshen@google.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, robert@ocallahan.org, Klaas Heidstra <klaas1988@gmail.com>, Brandon Andrews <warcraftthreeft@sbcglobal.net>, Olli@pettay.fi, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "Gregg Tavares (wrk)" <gman@google.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Continuing the discussion of some of the open issues I'm aware of:

-- If MouseEvent types are returned under mouse lock, what should .clientX/Y
and screenX/Y be? --
Spec as drafted states they should be the center of the target element.
That's likely a poor idea, as discussed, and a better solution is to
freeze .clientX/Y and screenX/Y to whatever their last value from the user
agent was.

(Pending feedback, I will update spec to state that .clientX/Y .screenX/Y
will report the same constant values of the last known cursor position just
as mouse lock was entered. This will also be the location the system cursor
will be placed at when mouse lock is exited)

-- Modify MouseEvent, or a new type returned by new mouse events? --
Spec as drafted now has simply added .movementX/Y data members to the
MouseEvent type which is returned by mouse events: click, mousedown,
mouseup, mouseover, mousemove, mouseout. No new mouse event types are
Several, including Glenn Maynard, Robert O'Callahan have brought up points
against this, suggesting different events and types.

Let me enumerate options and my perceived pro/cons:

Option A: as currently drafted: reuse existing mouse events, make minimal
modification to MouseEvent to include movementX/Y valid regardles of mouse
lock state, mouseover & mouseout will never be fired under mouse lock.

pro 1. minimal change to existing events and types
pro 2. movementX/Y available even when mouse is not locked. Purely a
convenience, apps could compute similar data by tracking the last position
of a mouse event and computing deltas (resetting last position on a
mouseover event).
pro 3. event handling code that can operate both with and without mouse lock
being acquired can do so easily using the same functions and taking the same
MouseEvent data type input. e.g. rotateView(mouse_event) could be called
from a mousemove event regardless of mouse lock state and still use

con 1. When under mouse lock, clientX/Y screenX/Y will not offer any useful
data - or worse implementations may not follow spec and provide misleading
data of the actual hidden cursor location.
con 2. Not all mouse events using MouseEvent are appropriate, mouseover and
mouseout should be suppressed. Glen continued that it is """probably cleaner
to stop firing *all* mouse movement events entirely, as if the mouse isn't
moving, and to use a separate "mousedelta" event when locked which only has
"deltaX" and "deltaY".""" Robert reiterated that point.

Option B: make no use of or modification to any existing mouse event or the
MouseEvent type. New mouse events created with unique names for click, down,
up, move, e.g. mouselockclick, mouselockdown, mouselockup, mouselockmove.
New events return a MouseLockEvent type derived from UIEvent that contains
movementX/Y, ctrlKey, shiftKey, altKey, metaKey, button. The events and data
types are completely mutually exclusive based on the state of mouse lock.

pro 1. (dual of Option A con 1): clientX/Y screenX/Y do not exist under
mouse lock.
pro 2. (dual of Option A pro 3): Functions designed specifically to operate
only under mouse lock, or only when not under mouse lock, are only triggered
when appropriate.

con 1. (dual of Option A pro 1): Larger change, introducing 4 new events and
a new return type.
con 2. (dual of Option A pro 2): movementX/Y must be calculated manually by
apps when not under lock.

Some hybrid could be considered, e.g. only make a new mouselockmove event
but reuse the click/down/up events. I don't think that hybrid is worth

My opinion:
- Option A con 1 (.client .screen not useful, could be wrong): I don't
perceive much damage here, and if implementation are making mistakes much
more could go wrong elsewhere, but they don't get new data even with faulty
client and screen data.
- Option A con 2 (not all events returning MouseEvent are appropriate in
mouse lock) isn't substantial... 4 of the events are and they happen to
share a MouseEvent type.
- I see no logical argument leading us to one or the other option. I'd
prefer the minimal change, the convenience of code that can use the same
MouseEvent structure, and .movementX/Y even when not in mouse lock.

(Pending feedback, I will leave spec at Option A but add clarification about
e.g. mouseover/mouseout not being called)

-- Separate targets for keyboard and mouse locked events? --
Robert: "... is there a need for mouse-lock motion events to go to one
element while keyboard input goes elsewhere? ... I'm asking whether we can
reuse the existing notion of the "currently focused element" and send mouse
events to that element while the mouse is locked."

I argue yes, there's a good cause for mouse events to a different target
than keyboard input. Status quo enables typing into an input field while
mousemove events are sent to different targets the mouse happens to be
moving over. In mouse lock, consider a game with a 3D viewport controlled by
mouse and a chat window with the active keyboard focus.

(Pending feedback, I will leave spec as is)

-- .lockmouse() on DOM elements or document? --
Robert: "... provide mouse-locking on a per-element basis? It seems to me it
would be enough for mouse-locking to be per-DOM-window (or per-DOM-document)
and deliver events to the focused element."
Jonas Sicking: "But if the mouseLock API was only available on the Document
object, then everyone would call it there and there would be no
interference between aggregated content. As soon as the lock was granted,
anyone that had requested it would be notified."

Spec as drafted places .lockMouse() .unlockMouse() and
.mouseLocked() interface on DOM elements and allows them to become the
target of all mouse events when under mouse lock.

It makes sense to move the.lockMouse() .unlockMouse() and .mouseLocked()
methods to the document. For me, the main reason is that the query
.mouseLocked() should be easy for any code to call to understand the state
of user interaction. No special ID or DOM element should be required to make
that query.

Also, it makes sense to have .mouseLocked() return the current target
element of the mouse lock. That enables queries such as "Is the mouse
locked? And, if so, do I have the lock or some other widget?".

(Pending feedback, I will migrate the MouseLockable Interface from element
to the document, update lockMouse to take a target element, and will adjust
mouseLocked to return the current target.)

-- Automatically release mouse lock on mouseup --
Robert proposed an option to act similarly to the .setCapture API and permit
a mouse lock based on a user gesture button press that automatically ends
when they release the button. This would enable some use cases without
requiring permission prompts to users or larger risks.

I agree with this goal. I hesitate to place it into v1 of this spec because
it helps the minor use cases in windowed mode but we still do not have an
implementation solving the major ones. And, to implement this one should
also have an implementation of .setCapture, which e.g. Chrome does not now
and it is not planned. It is not clear if this feature should live on
.lockMouse or on .setCapture. If both were implemented, either API could be
augmented fairly easily to offer the hybrid functionality.

(Pending feedback, no change to spec)

-- movementX/Y should not 'pop' when not under mouse lock and mouse enters
window --
Upon entering the user agent window what should movementX/Y be? I argue they
should be zeroed. Alternatives are to compute delta of mouse cursor's
position that was out of window (may be difficult, tiny risk of security
issue), or to provide a big jump by computing the delta from the last
location the mouse was when it was on top of the window.

(Pending feedback, I will add this detail to spec)

-- Provide mouse deltas without hiding the cursor, alternatively provide a
bounding rectangle for mouse --
(See Klaas's recent suggestions)
It may be possible, but significant implementation hurdles remain for this.
First, we must be able to specify the units that mouse deltas will be
provided in. That does not appear straight forward. E.g. the windows API
offers only the movements, sampling frequency, and HID id. Offering data in
"post ballistics" / accelerated and configured mouse pointer units is
straight forward to specify and implement across platforms and
implementations of this API. If we find implementation routes we can add
access to this data in a later revision, the two API versions are not
mutually exclusive and implementation work would be straight forward to
share. All use cases are possible even with the 'bundled' proposal as
currently spec-ed though they may need to create their own cursor for a
visible cursor.

-- Multiple locks, or migrating a lock, or iframes --
In security discussion with Chrome staff we suggest that .mouseLock is only
possible from code executing in the top level document origin. Nested
iframes would work only if matching the origin of the top most parent
document. If mouse lock is currently held, we see no reason to not allow it
to be transferred between elements or plugins of that origin. It is the
application developer's responsibility to have cooperating code that avoids
cycles of stealing input. The user experience would be oddly multiplexed
input across components, but no security threat exists, or even nuisance as
the escape logic remains the same. (repeated re-locks prevented as suggested
similar to pop-up blockers). Preventing other elements from unlocking and
performing their own lock would add complexity to the spec and
implementations and seems unneccessary.

(Pending feedback, I will add to the spec the restriction of matching the
top level document's origin. Spec as is states lock can be transfered at the
option of the user agent -- I will change to explicitly allow.)
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 00:55:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:23 UTC