W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: [pointerlock] Oct 2015 Pointer Lock Status

From: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:55:02 +0900
To: "Vincent Scheib" <scheib@google.com>
Cc: "Webapps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.x7f7h0fos7agh9@widsith.local>
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 05:08:10 +0900, Vincent Scheib <scheib@google.com>  
wrote:

> 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).

OK. We also don't want to let perfect be the enemy of good. If things are  
truly edge cases it might be worth letting them wait for a revision unless  
they are reasonably straightforward.

>> 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.

OK, thanks. You might as well prime them with the things I called out  
above…

I guess the other thing is how you deal with Zoom, but I guess the short  
answer is "there are bigger things on screen". In fact zoom for  
accessibility is probably a use case that this spec can help, although  
maybe the mouse event stuff breaks that. I'll have a think in the morning  
if I am lucky.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
  chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 2 November 2015 00:55:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:58 UTC