- From: Lukasz Olejnik via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 21:19:01 +0000
- To: public-device-apis-log@w3.org
Well that depends what we want to achieve. So low-level (high granularity, frequency) sensors are permission based. Good. If we want to make high-level sensors no-permission, let's first define the extent of no-permission readout (i.e. precision, etc). As for the fusion - ability to read from a number of sensors simultaneously, it's catchy to think how to define those, i.e. to avoid permissions such as "all" (grant all by default). I agree it would be nice from a usability point of view to stack permissions under a different name (e.g. "motion sensors"), although it doesn't mean that other sensors can't contribute data suggesting user's motion patterns ;) Perhaps let's think of a (perhaps separate?) note with informative suggestions and guidance, i.e. also related to transparency. Like perhaps Note on Sensors Accountability, or Privacy even, or so? I could volunteer to be a (co-)editor. We would still need to keep it quite general since it's probably UAs job to do the UX research/design anyway. We could also - perhaps - suggest some mechanism of prioritization, i.e. set sensitive APIs with high priority, less sensitive with low priority - and let UAs decide how to expose those to users, and which to ask for. But that's really a permission related topic... I probably diverted too much from the main topic, anyway... -- GitHub Notification of comment by lknik Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/132#issuecomment-257701027 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2016 21:19:07 UTC