W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > May 2012

Re: [sensors] Device Proximity (was: Device light and proximity sensor)

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 15:19:28 -0700
Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <577CE3E7-379D-43D7-8358-4824DA94F79E@berjon.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
On May 9, 2012, at 14:16 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Tran, Dzung D wrote:
>>> So, what I agreed with jonas about was a new event that only fired when there was a transition between near and far. device proximity for something that was more advanced. <insert this new event name here> for something really simple. 
>> 
>> What I am afraid of is that browsers going to interpret far versus near differently on the same device. I rather to give the control to the programmer to interpret base on value, min, max.
> 
> I'm afraid of the opposite thing. I more trust the people that are closer to the os (or directly interfacing with the hardware) to handle that.  

The OS knows the sensor's calibration best  it ought to be able to give you near/far events directly. That's how things work on iOS where you get a proximityState boolean when something is close to the device. Android does it more like Doug's proposal.

If the use case is just detecting proximity then I prefer the iOS approach  the OS will know better, and the developer doesn't need to know more. If we're trying to do a generic distance sensor then we're missing at least a field to indicate multiple sensors triggering (which is not common on phones, but I believe is the norm on cars  yes, we have to get used to thinking about those too I'm afraid :).

I'm not convinced that we should try to merge the two use cases into a single approach.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 22:19:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 22:19:55 GMT