On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Matthew Ayres <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Bradley T. Hughes < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 03/01/2010 03:34 PM, ext Daniel Stone wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 02:56:57PM +0100, Bradley T. Hughes wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> This is where the context confusion comes in. How do we know what the >>>> user(s) is/are trying to do solely based on a set of x/y/z/w/h >>>> coordinates? In some cases, a single device with multiple axes is >>>> enough, >>>> but in other cases it is not. >>>> >>> >>> Sure. But in this case you don't get any extra information from having >>> multiple separate devices vs. a single device. The only difference -- >>> aside from being able to direct events to multiple windows -- is the >>> representation. >>> >> >> Correct. However, I think that being able to direct events to multiple >> windows is the main reason we're having this particular discussion. How do >> we do it, given the current state of the art? >> > > This question made me feel like I was at an icecream stall, trying to pick > a flavour I like that doesn't have too many bugs in it :P > > > If the hardware is intelligent enough to be able to pick out different >>> fingers, then cool, we can split it all out into separate focii and it's >>> quite easy. >>> >> >> >> I don't think hardware is that intelligent... yet. I forget the name of >> the program (not CCV as far as I know), but there does exist a program that >> implements the TUIO protocol WITH support for object-id's. It can do object >> recognition under special circumstances by looking for and identifying >> infrared reflectors placed on the table's surface (and these reflectors are >> often attached to an object). Programs could then map these object id's to >> something meaningful (object id 5, mapped to "Brad's phone", could sync my >> email, for example). I don't know of anything that tries to identify >> individual fingers, though. > > > reacTIVision. My very involvement here is a result of wanting to use > reacTIVision's fiducial markers in MPX. I consider the availability of > fiducial tracking vital and imagine each registered fiducial being slaved to > a unique MD. > > I have high hopes of Ryan Huffman's xf86-input-tuio driver and am looking > forward to inclusion of certain features to ease this behaviour. > > >> Failing that, how are we supposed to do it? Say two people have a >>> logical button press active (mouse button, finger down, pen down, >>> whatever) at once. Now a third button press comes along ... what do we >>> do? Is it a gesture related to one of the two down? If so, which one >>> (and which order do we ask them in, etc). A couple of years ago we >>> still could've guessed, but as Qt and GTK are now doing client-side >>> windows, it's really hard to even make a _guess_ in the server. >>> >> >> Right, and this was Peter's point... the X server can't know it and >> shouldn't try to guess. What I did in Qt was to deliver the 3rd touch point >> together with its closest neighbor (if the 3rd touch point was not over a >> widget explicitly asking for touch events, that is). > > > To me this sounds almost to be saying that touch events should be handled > no differently than mouse events, but that doesn't seem right. A mouse is > always present, it always has a position. A touch-sensitive slave/physical > device may always be attached, but unless something is touching it, isn't it > essentially absent? >
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
