Re: [pointerlock] Oct 2015 Pointer Lock Status

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Chaals McCathie Nevile <
chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> Yes. You are *not* required to use testharness tests. While it would be
> good to get the automation of stuff like this landed, it is perfectly
> reaonable to write some interop tests in the form "load this page and do
> this and then this and then this, and determine whether you see this or
> that". A set of tests of this nature that collectively cover the spec's
> features should be enough. And it is a Good Thing™ to use content found in
> the wild as the basis for this.
>

Thanks for clarifying. Basic usage is demonstrated in the wild but some
edge cases should have clear demonstration in the test suite. I will
generate those as other project priorities allow (and would of course
review any from others).

If it is implemented in multiple browsers, is used by websites "in the
> wild", and you can show that it has been looked over to see if concerns
> were indentified relating to accessibility, API design,
> internationalisation, privacy, and security, we probably have sufficiently
> wide review to request Proposed Rec.
>


> A lot of that is already reflected in the spec. The cases of accessibility
> that strike me as relevant are being able to generate synthetic mouse
> events, e.g. with keyboard, escape pointer lock, and making sure that users
> understand when they have been put into it - especially for users with
> cognitive disabilities.
>

Thanks. Accessibility should be addressed more explicitly in the
specification. I will reach out to the APA and solicit suggestions.