Re: [mediaqueries4] pointer: coarse and pannable, zoomable viewports

Thanks for your comments on my blog.

I should probably make it clear that I actually agree with the approach you
took for this spec. The blog post was to raise awareness, spark some
discussion and highlight that it isn't necessarily a silver bullet.

As I said, if OS vendors get primary pointer allocations *correct*, then
all is well. Sort of.


As Josh Clark's article [1] and Microsoft's recommendations [2] explain,
there are a huge number of different ways that users can hold and use a
touchscreen device in different environments — which will affect their
preference of touch vs mouse/trackpad, as well as ideal layouts so that
primary/secondary buttons are in convenient positions etc.

So, short of tracking a load of sensors to determine the user's posture (!)
maybe there are just too many variables for developers to make any
realistic decisions, even with these media queries.

That said, I'm a big fan of empowering developers — some amazing things can
happen when creative minds are given the tools, even when their best use
may not be obvious at first. But if this is the aim, then it would be worth
thinking about what *other* information could be made available to query,
e.g.:

   - Enumerated devices, e.g. `@media pointer ((accuracy:coarse) and
   (hover:0)) { ... }` to query if a single device with both of those
   qualities is present
   - More accuracy values, e.g. Kinect could be considered to be "very
   coarse"!
   - Ability to express hover *distance* - again, Kinect-like gesture
   inputs could relay this kind of information
   - "Real" pointer vs "virtual" pointer, e.g. pointing sticks and console
   controllers can move a mouse cursor but are slow and awkward for most users



Stu Cox


[1] http://globalmoxie.com/blog/desktop-touch-design.shtml
[2] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/windows/apps/hh465415.aspx




On 6 March 2013 10:05, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:02:39 +0100, Stu Cox <stuart.cox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  You say above that choice of primary input mechanisms is a subjective
>> choice for the UA vendors. However, the Pointer Events spec gives a
>> slightly more formal definition implying that *any* two input devices
>> connected would be primary; e.g. touch and mouse; I quote:
>>
>
>  This suggests that [...]
>>
>>
>> Or are these definitions unrelated?
>>
>
> These two definitions are indeed unrelated, the two specs were written
> independently and without coordination.
>
> Based on your recent blog[1], I believe your understanding of what I meant
> is correct. Independently of whether you think this is the right approach
> (which is definitely worth discussing), if you think the current draft is
> hard to understand, I would definitely welcome suggestions for improving
> the wording.
>
>  - Florian
>
> [1] http://www.stucox.com/blog/**the-good-and-bad-of-level-4-**
> media-queries/<http://www.stucox.com/blog/the-good-and-bad-of-level-4-media-queries/>
>
>