Open code, practice, and notes →
Download source with English comments · for reading
Motion · 15 Hover and Focus
Series contents · Technology map
Stage: Gestures and Equivalent Interaction · Editable example · Storage ID: motion-step-15
Goals and learning outcomes
- Learning outcome: Explain the role of Pointer state. Input case: Mouse entry and Tab.
- Deliverable: A table of emphasis and selection indicators for both inputs. Connect your rationale for handling Focus to the code.
Prerequisites
Prepare the results of the Sorting and removal and Identity exercises from Unit 14, “Layout and Exit”.
Key concepts and explanations
Pointer state
whileHover provides pointer feedback. Touch and keyboard inputs may not have the same event.
Focus
whileFocus and focus-visible styles make the keyboard path visible. Do not communicate selected state through visual effects alone.
Practice setup
First check the execution scope guidance on the example screen. The following describes the environment needed to extend the assignment in a separate project. The existing motion-01·02·03 examples are limited examples based on Motion JS animate. For React layout, AnimatePresence, and hooks exercises, install motion in a separate local React project and import from motion/react. Do not assume JSX runs directly in the editor; preserve CSP and isolation.
The linked example is a starting point. It does not implement every task below. Complete work beyond its supported scope in a separate project.
Practice tasks
- In src/day-15.tsx of a separate exercise project, add whileHover, whileFocus, and explicit selection text to card buttons. Use the existing Unit 1·14·28 examples only as starting points.
- Input condition: Mouse entry and Tab. Baseline: Pointer. Run under the baseline condition, then record observations and errors in notes/day-15.md.
- Variable to change: Input; new value: Keyboard. Run again with the same input path. Deliverable to save: A table of emphasis and selection indicators for both inputs. Hypothesis to test: The keyboard also makes the interaction target identifiable. Compare it with the actual results and record whether they agree and the causes of any differences.
Variables to observe
| Variable | Baseline | Change | Expected change / hypothesis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input | Pointer | Keyboard | The keyboard also makes the interaction target identifiable. |
Predictions in this table are not measured results. Change one condition at a time and record why the actual result differs.
Completion criteria
- Required deliverable: A table of emphasis and selection indicators for both inputs. You have results for both the baseline and changed conditions, allowing a comparison of 2 conditions, and have recorded the input values and execution environment.
- Your explanation of the differences between the two conditions connects both concepts: Pointer state and Focus. For unexpected items, give at least 1 cause or reason they remain unresolved.
Self-check
- Which processing stage does Pointer state affect in this exercise? Input case: Mouse entry and Tab.
- Variable to change: Input. Hypothesis to test: The keyboard also makes the interaction target identifiable. Did the actual results agree with the hypothesis? Explain your evidence in terms of Focus.
Official references
Linked example and execution scope
Example source · Runtime environments and limits
Interactive Hover and Focus experiment with cleanup of the resources used.
Source code and records are not overwritten automatically. Resetting an existing example also preserves your notes.