- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:54:11 -0700
- To: Robert Kk <umbertoko@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Robert Kk <umbertoko@gmail.com> wrote: > Querying for pointer can be very usable. But it is not exact enough for > me... > > When I use an android mobile with a resolution higher the 400dpi I can draw > many things on the view port. But it will not be very usable for the user. > His pointer is in real live about 1cm2 and on the viewport over 150px. On a > desktop|notebook I have a small resolution (like 1280px or 1024px) but a > very exact pointer. I can click on a 5x5 pixel field.... > > For accessibility reasons it can be also good to know, how exact a user can > click. Some people can not hit small fields at all. Other must hard try to > do it. > > For smartphones we can get a solution like zoom-in on ambiguous clicks (like > in chorme). But we must click two times. Real good responsive design should > be able to scale the size of action fields based on pointer size info. > > My submission is: to use (alternatively) numerical values to recognize how > exact a user can click. I don't see in your examples any good reasons to need more than two levels of accuracy. Can you explain in more detail a situation where you'd need 3 or more accuracy levels? While it's not explained in the draft, "fine" generally means your pointing targets should be at least 10px wide, while "course" means at least 40px wide. I think Florian has noted in the past that it might be reasonable to expose a "very-coarse" value, if someone can show that they're developing for a device where targets that are 40px or so wide are still too small to accurately hit. (Exposing precise parameter values is sometimes an anti-pattern, as authors then have to guess what the boundaries of exact categories are. Providing the semantic categories up-front can be an important and useful simplification.) ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 17:54:58 UTC