I had a previous question about stating a specific class of computing device, or input method of a computing device. This is a related follow-up question.
Assume a form of click-and-drag-over interaction is stated in the first independent claim because it's a key feature of the invention as a preferred embodiment (regardless of whether actually stated as "preferred.") With the mention of "touchscreen device" dropped from the independent claim as previously recommended here, how does it look to have something like this in one of the dependent claims?:
[stated task] is accomplished by means other than icon dragging, the other means including but not limited to successive click-selection with a moving cursor or selection by voice command or eye-tracking control.
or as an alternate structure, using a Markush claim construction such as:
[stated task] is accomplished by means other than icon dragging, the other means selected from the group consisting of:
a) successive click-selection with a moving cursor
b) successive selection by voice command or eye-tracking control.
Which construction, if either, is better?
REVISION for comment: Still assuming the independent claim(s) states a drag-and-drop method of interaction, how about this revised version of the dependent claim?:
The method of claim x wherein detecting user selection of [state what is being selected] can be accomplished by a means selected from the group consisting of:
a) detecting successive click-selection of icons by a moving cursor;
b) detecting successive selection of icons by voice command;
c) detecting successive selection of icons by eye-tracking control;
d) detecting successive selection of icons by other assistive technology.
––In the above statement, would "can be accomplished" be more inclusive than "is accomplished"? (I am thinking "is accomplished" could imply use of only the alternate input method(s) but does not also include the originally claimed method which is drag-and-drop.)