Copyright © 2024 World Wide Web Consortium. W3C® liability, trademark and permissive document license rules apply.
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at https://www.w3.org/TR/.
A history of changes to this document can be found at https://github.com/w3c/pointerlock/commits/gh-pages/index.html
Summary of changes since W3C Recommendation 27 October 2016:
This document was published by the Web Applications Working Group as a Working Draft using the Recommendation track.
Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by W3C and its Members.
This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
This document was produced by a group operating under the W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.
This document is governed by the 03 November 2023 W3C Process Document.
This section is non-normative.
The Pointer Lock API provides applications the ability to directly interpret mouse movements as an input method, rather than being limited to only read the position of the mouse cursor. A popular example is that of first person movement controls in three dimensional graphics applications such as games: movement of the mouse is interpreted to control the rotation/direction of the player's camera; no mouse cursor is displayed, and the movement is not limited to the traditional boundaries (such as the user agent's window, or the overall screen) that the mouse cursor is usually subject to, meaning that any mouse movements can be tracked indefinitely in any direction.
Pointer Lock is related to Mouse Capture [MDN-SETCAPTURE] (Mouse Capture is unspecified: bug 14600). Capture provides continued event delivery to a target element while a mouse is being dragged, but ceases when the mouse button is released. Pointer Lock differs by being persistent, not limited by screen boundaries, sending events regardless of mouse button state, hiding the cursor, and not releasing until an API call or specific default unlock gesture by the user.
Pointer Lock deals with capturing a single resource and relating it to a single element. This is similar to the Fullscreen API [FULLSCREEN], which promotes a single element to be full screen. The Pointer Lock API chooses to pattern the resource capture, state change, and release API as closely as possible after the Fullscreen API.
The Pointer Lock interaction mode was previously referred to as mouse lock. The name was changed as many different controller types besides mice can manipulate the on screen pointing cursor, and they are all impacted.
The pointer lock state is the state where a single DOM element, which we will call the pointer-lock target, receives all mouse events and the cursor is hidden.
Once in the pointer lock state the user agent has a
pointer-lock target, a pointer-lock options, which is
a PointerLockOptions
and a cursor position which is a
pair of numbers representing the location of the system mouse cursor
when the Pointer Lock State was entered (the same location that is
reported in screenX
, screenY
). The pointer-lock target
receives all relevant user generated MouseEvent
events: namely,
all user-generated mousemove
, mousedown
, mouseup
, click
,
dblclick
, auxclick
, and wheel
[ui-events]. No other elements
receive these events while in pointer lock state. There will be
no dispatching of events that require the concept of a mouse cursor:
namely, mouseenter
, mouseleave
, mouseover
, mouseout
, drag
,
and drop
.
This came up in this thread on #49:
Would it be possible to list these events normatively, instead of only giving some examples?
I think the current text is OK, because the lack of precision here is just a symptom of the larger lack of precision in how mouse events are specified in general. Some progress is being made there, in w3c/uievents#200, and if that lands then eventually this paragraph can move into the UI events spec as an actual change to the processing model.
But in the meantime, it would help achieve interoperability if you were precise about the list of events.
For example, it's not clear to me whether pointer events are impacted by this change.
While in the pointer lock state if the pointer-lock options'
unadjustedMovement
member is true
, the event
coordinates will not be affected by the underlying platform behaviors
such as mouse acceleration. In other words, the user agent uses the
APIs provided by the underlying platform to guarantee getting the raw
events. If the PointerLockOptions
'
unadjustedMovement
member is false
, the user
agent relies on the default behavior of the underlying platform
regarding the mouse acceleration.
In the pointer lock state, the system mouse cursor is hidden and the window is prevented from losing focus, regardless of mouse movement or button presses. This is directly or indirectly achieved utilizing the underlying operating system API.
Synthetic mouse events created by application script act the same regardless of lock state.
WebIDLdictionary PointerLockOptions
{
boolean unadjustedMovement
= false;
};
PointerLockOptions
dictionary
The options dictionary to customize how the pointer behaves in the locked mode.
unadjustedMovement
member
If this value is set to true
, then the pointer movements will
not be affected by the underlying platform modifications such as
mouse accelaration.
Two events are used to communicate pointer lock state change or an
error in changing state. They are named pointerlockchange and pointerlockerror. Refer to algorithm of
3.
Extensions to the Element
Interface for detail.
Magnification software increases the size of content on the screen.
It uses the mouse to move the magnified point of focus around. When a
pointer lock is initiated, the magnification software needs to switch
to using the keyboard to move the magnified point of focus around
instead. When a pointerlockchange
event is fired, web browsers
therefore need to make sure the event is communicated to assistive
technologies like screen magnifiers.
The process of exiting pointer lock, given an element, is as follows:
pointerlockchange
at the given
element's node document.
The Element
interface is extended to provide the ability to request
the pointer be locked.
WebIDLpartial interface Element {
Promise<undefined> requestPointerLock
(optional PointerLockOptions
options = {});
};
const lock_element = document.getElementById("lock_element");
const lock_button = document.getElementById("lock");
lock_button.addEventListener("click", async (event) => {
try {
await lock_element.requestPointerLock({ unadjustedMovement: true });
console.log("successfully locked!");
} catch (e) {
console.log("lock failed with error: ", e);
}
});
PointerLockOptions
options) method
A parallel queue named as lock requests queue is
used for queuing all requests. When requestPointerLock()
is invoked, perform the following steps:
window
is in focus, if the
this's shadow-including root is the active document of a browsing context (or has an
ancestor browsing context) that is not in focus:
pointerlockerror
at
this's node document.
WrongDocumentError
"
DOMException
.
The spec should not allow hidden documents to request pointer lock.
Additionally, should a document become hidden, it should release the pointer lock.
Document
has not previously released a
successful pointer lock with exitPointerLock
()
:
pointerlockerror
at
this's node document.
NotAllowedError
" DOMException
.
pointerlockerror
at
this's node document.
SecurityError
" DOMException
.
unadjustedMovement
"] is true
and the platform does not support
unadjustedMovement
:
pointerlockerror
at
this's node document.
NotSupportedError
" DOMException
.
In PR #49, PointerLockOptions
is introduced. However, unadjustedMovement
of PointerLockOptions
might not be supported on all platforms. A static field could be useful to determine whether it is supported before directly using it in PointerLockOptions
and get a not supported error.
pointerlockerror
at
this's node document.
InvalidStateError
" DOMException
.
pointerlockchange
at
this's node document.
pointerlockerror
at
this's node document.
NotSupportedError
" DOMException
.
In the PR #49's algorithm of requestPointerLock
is currently missing the description for the scenario:
When a subsequent request failed (for any possible reason), should an already locked target exit lock state?
pointerlockchange
at this's node document.
In the PR#49's algorithm of requestPointerLock is currently missing the description about how entries in lock requests queue
are processed. Without an explicit text, we will leave open the incorrect (?) assumption that all entries will be synchronously dequeued at the end.
WebIDLpartial interface Document {
attribute EventHandler onpointerlockchange
;
attribute EventHandler onpointerlockerror
;
undefined exitPointerLock
();
};
onpointerlockchange
attribute
An event handler idl attribute for
pointerlockchange
events.
onpointerlockerror
attribute
An event handler idl attribute for
pointerlockerror
events.
exitPointerLock()
method
WebIDLpartial interface mixin DocumentOrShadowRoot {
readonly attribute Element? pointerLockElement
;
};
pointerLockElement
While the pointer is locked, returns the result of retargeting the element, which is the target for mouse events, against this element if the result and this element are in the same tree, otherwise returns null.
Returns null if lock is pending or if pointer is unlocked.
<body>
<div id="host1">
<shadow-root id="root1">
<canvas id="canvas1"></canvas>
</shadow-root>
</div>
<div id="host2">
<shadow-root id="root2">
<canvas id="canvas2"></canvas>
</shadow-root>
</div>
</body>
The example uses fictional shadow-root
element to denote a
shadow root instance.
If #canvas1
is the target, document.pointerLockElement
returns
#host1
, and root1.pointerLockElement
returns #canvas1
. The
result of retargeting #canvas1
against #root2
is #host1
,
but as #host1
is not in the same tree as #root2
, null will be
returned for root2.pointerLockElement
.
WebIDLpartial interface MouseEvent {
readonly attribute double movementX
;
readonly attribute double movementY
;
};
movementX
attribute
movementY
attribute
The attributes movementX
and movementY
must provide the
change in position of the pointer, as if the values of screenX
,
screenY
, were stored between two subsequent mousemove
events
eNow
and ePrevious
and the difference taken movementX =
eNow.screenX - ePrevious.screenX
.
movementX
and movementY
must be zero for all mouse events
except mousemove
. All motion data must be delivered via
mousemove
events such that between any two mouse events
earlierEvent
and currentEvent
the value of
currentEvent.screenX - earlierEvent.screenX
is equivalent to the
sum of all movementX
in the events after earlierEvent
, with
the exception of when screenX can not be updated because the
pointer is clipped by the user agent screen boundaries.
movementX
and movementY
must be updated regardless of
pointer lock state.
When unlocked, the system cursor can exit and re-enter the user agent window. If it does so and the user agent was not the
target of operating system mouse move events then the most recent
pointer position will be unknown to the user agent and
movementX
/ movementY
can not be computed and must be set
to zero.
When pointer lock is enabled clientX
, clientY
, screenX
, and
screenY
must hold constant values as if the pointer did not move
at all once pointer lock was entered. But movementX
and
movementY
must continue to provide the change in position of
the pointer as when the pointer is unlocked. There will be no limit
to movementX
and movementY
values if the mouse is
continuously moved in a single direction. The concept of the mouse
cursor will have been removed, and it will not move off the window
or be clamped by a screen edge.
The un-initialized value of movementX
and movementY
must be
0
.
Large movement values must not appear in situations when mouse
input is interupted, such as the mouse cursor leaving the window
and then re-entering at another location. If a user agent
experiences a gap in receiving mouse input data from the operating
system then the next generated mousemove
event must have
movementX
and movementY
set to 0
. These gaps may appear
for example when the user agent receives a mouse leaving event
at the window system API. As an exception mouse capture may allow
the user agent to continue receiving mouse events when the
cursor moves outside the window.
WebIDLpartial dictionary MouseEventInit {
double movementX
= 0;
double movementY
= 0;
};
movementX
member
movementY
member
movementX
and movementY
are used to initialize
respective members of MouseEvent
.
A default unlock gesture must always be available that will exit pointer lock with the user agent's pointer-lock target.
Pointer lock must be exited if the pointer-lock target becomes disconnected, or the user agent, window, or tab loses focus. Moving focus between elements of active document, including between browsing contexts , does not exit pointer lock. E.g. using the keyboard to move focus between contents of frames or iframes will not exit.
Pointer lock must not be exited when fullscreen [FULLSCREEN] is entered or exited unless the pointer is required to enable interaction with the user agent graphical user interface, the default unlock gesture was used to exit both fullscreen and pointer lock, or window or tab focus was lost.
This section is non-normative.
A player on a first/third person game will need to control the view-port orientation. A widely used method is the use of mouse movements to control the viewing angle. This kind of application can use the Pointer Lock API to allow a complete freedom of control over the viewport's yaw and pitch even when the user is not pressing mouse buttons. Those buttons can be used for other actions while constantly providing navigation via mouse movement.
Users of a three dimensional modeling application will need to rotate models. A application can use the Pointer Lock API to enable the author to rotate the model freely in a drag operation without limiting motion. Without pointer lock a drag would stop providing motion data when the mouse cursor is limited by the edge of the screen.
Similarly, absolute motion panning of a large two dimensional image could be permitted in a single drag operation without cursor / screen limits.
A player on a fast reflexes game controls a paddle to bounce back a ball to the opponent, while allowing the same paddle to execute actions based on different mouse buttons being pressed. The application can use the Pointer Lock API to allow the player to react quickly without being concerned about the mouse cursor leaving the game play area and clicking another system application, thus breaking the game flow.
When modifying numerically magnitudes in applications sometimes the user will prefer to "drag" a numeric control by its button handles to increment or decrement the numeric value. E.g. a spinner with a number entry text box and arrows pointing up and down that can be clicked or dragged on to change the value. An application could use the Pointer Lock API to allow modifying the numeric values beyond what the logical screen bounds allow. The same could apply for a control that fast forwards or rewinds a video or audio stream like a "jog".
Some games use a classical cursor, however they want it to be limited or controlled in some manner. E.g. limited to the bounds of the game, or movable by the game. Locking the pointer enables this if the application creates their own cursor. However HTML and DOM should still be available to use for user interface. Synthetic mouse events should be permitted to allow an application defined cursor to interact with DOM. E.g. the following code should permit a custom cursor to send click events while the pointer is locked:
document.addEventListener("click", function (e) {
if (e._isSynthetic)
return;
// send a synthetic click
var ee = document.createEvent("MouseEvents");
ee._isSynthetic = true;
x = myCursor.x;
y = myCursor.y;
ee.initMouseEvent("click", true, true, null, 1,
x + e.screenX - e.clientX,
y + e.screenY - e.clientY,
x,
y);
var target = document.elementFromPoint(x, y);
if (target)
target.dispatchEvent(ee);
});
Note that synthetic clicks may not be permitted by a user agent to produce the same default action as a non-synthetic click. However, application handlers can still take action and provide user interface with existing HTML & DOM mechanisms.
Real Time Strategy games often use this technique. When the player moves the pointer to the view-port borders, if they "push" the border with a mouse movement, the view-port is panned over the game area according to how much they move the mouse. When moving the mouse cursor within the bounds of the view port it acts at is typically would on a system. Applications may choose to implement this using pointer lock and the previous use case of "Synthetic cursor interaction with HTML DOM UI" to bring cursor behavior completely under their control.
Games that use pointer lock may desire a traditional UI and system cursor while players prepare in a game lobby. Games usually start after a short timer when all players are ready. Ideally the game could then switch to pointer lock mode without a user activation. Players should be able to seamlessly move from the game lobby into game navigation.
Game portals, and other sites such as Facebook and Google Plus, host games for users to play. These games may be hosted and served from a different origin from that of the portal site. Embedded games should be able to lock the pointer, even in non-full screen mode.
This section is non-normative.
Security Concerns:
Responses:
Recommendations:
Pointer lock is a required user interaction mode for certain application types, but carries a usability concern if maliciously used. An attacker could remove the ability for a user to control their mouse cursor on their system. user agents will prevent this by always providing a mechanism to exit pointer lock, by informing the user of how, and by limiting how pointer lock can be entered.
user agents will determine their own appropriate policies, which may be specialized per device or differ based on user options.
This section is non-normative.
Mouse Capture [MDN-SETCAPTURE] handles low security risk mouse event target lock for the duration of a mouse drag gesture. Pointer lock removes the concept of the cursor and directs all events to a given target. They are related, but different.
If a browser implemented both, it would be reasonable to support a combination of traits: The security simplicity of "automatically release lock when mouse up" and the increased functionality of total control over mouse input and removal of the system cursor. The security trait would allow more permissive use of the feature for applications that only required a short burst of pointer lock during a drag event.
This functionality is omitted from the initial version of this spec because it helps the minor use cases in windowed mode but we still do not have an implementation solving the major ones. And, to implement this a browser must implement both, which none does yet. It is not clear if this feature should live on .lock or on .setCapture. If both were implemented, either API could be augmented fairly easily to offer the hybrid functionality.
Even in non locked state, the delta values of mouse movement are useful. Changing the meaning of .client or .screen based on lock state would also cause easy errors in code not carefully monitoring the lock state.
When the pointer is locked 'wheel' events should be sent to the pointer-lock target element just as 'mousemove' events are. There is a naming conflict with .deltaX/Y/Z as defined in DOM 3 'wheel' event.
There are good motivations to provide a more fine grained approach. E.g. the use case "View-port panning by moving a mouse cursor against the bounds of a view-port" doesn't require hiding the mouse cursor, only bounding it and always having delta values available. Also, this specification defines the movement deltas to be taken from how the system mouse cursor moves, which incorporates operating system filtering and acceleration of the mouse movement data. Applications may desire access to a more raw form of movement data prior to adjustments appropriate for a mouse cursor. Also, raw data may provide better than pixel level accuracy for movement, as well as higher frequency updates. Providing the raw delta movement would also not require special permission or mode from a user, and for some set of applications that do not require bounding the cursor may reduce the security barriers and prompts needed.
There are two justifications for postponing this finer grained approach. The first is a concern of specifying what units mouse movement data are provided in. This specification defines .movementX/Y precisely as the same values that could be recorded when the mouse is not under lock by changes in .screenX/Y. Implementations across multiple user agents and operating systems will easily be able to meet that requirement and provide application developers and users with a consistent experience. Further, users are expected to have already configured the full system of hardware input and operating system options resulting in a comfortable control the system mouse cursor. By specifying .movementX/Y in the same units mouse lock API applications will be instantly usable to all users because they have already settled their preferences.
Secondly, the implementation of providing movement data and bounding the mouse cursor is more difficult in the fine grained approach. Bundling the features together gives implementations freedom to use a variety of techniques as appropriate on each operating system and is more practical to implement. Direct APIs do not exist on major desktop platforms (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux) to bound the cursor to a specific rectangle, and prototypes have not yet been developed to demonstrate building that behavior by e.g. invisible windows with Xlib or manual cursor movement on Mac. Unaccelerated Delta values have been proposed to be accessed by reading raw Human Interface Device (HID) data. E.g. WM_INPUT messages on Windows, and USB device APIs on Mac OS X / Linux. The challenge here is interpreting and normalizing the units to some consistent and specifiable scale. Also, most APIs considered to date are limited to USB devices.
It would be reasonable to consider adding these capabilities in the future, as the currently specified pointer lock API would be easy to continue to support if the finer grained delta and confinement features were implemented.
The bundled API is selected for implementation practicality, because the desired use cases are supported, and because it will not conflict with future improvements as discussed here.
Not yet, for the same reasons in the previous question: "Why bundle all functionality (hiding cursor, providing mouse deltas) instead of using CSS to hide the cursor, always providing delta values, and offering an API to restrict the cursor movement to a portion of the web page?".
When under pointer lock many mouse events remain relevant, e.g. click, mousedown, etc. These all share the same event data structure MouseEvent. If movement data were reported via a new data structure then a new event would be needed for reporting delta movement. The new data structure would have many parallels to MouseEvent to offer the same conveniences, e.g. button and modifier key states. When handling click, down, and up events would the existing mousedown, mouseup be used? If so, they would provide .clientX/Y and .screenX/Y with no useful data, but would lack the convenience of containing the current movement data. Or, new events would also be required for when the mouse is locked.
Also, movementX/Y are convenient even when the mouse is not locked. This spec requires movement members to always be valid, even when the mouse cursor exists. This reduces code required to track the last cursor state and mouseover/mouseout transitions if applications wish to make use of delta motion of the mouse.
The only negative of adding movementX/Y to MouseEvent appears to be the unused values in clientX/Y and screenX/Y when under pointer lock. This does not seem to be a significant problem.
Therefore the minimal change to add movementX/Y to MouseEvent is selected to reduce API and implementation complexity.
Consider a game with a 3D view controlled by moving the mouse cursor, while the user may still chat with other users via a text console. It is reasonable for the application to accept text input to an element that is different than where mouse events are being dispatched. This is similar to pre-existing behavior of receiving mousemove events over any element while typing into a form on a page.
As well as sections marked as non-normative, all authoring guidelines, diagrams, examples, and notes in this specification are non-normative. Everything else in this specification is normative.
This specification defines conformance criteria that apply to a single product: the user agent that implements the interfaces that it contains.
This section is non-normative.
Many thanks to lots of people who made contributions to the discussions of this specification:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in: