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

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

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 00:48:00 +0100
To: Tran, Dzung D <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
Cc: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A6853458237C4CBA86BEB7A3512D1A1D@marcosc.com>



On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 23:37, Tran, Dzung D wrote:

> You are leaving it to the OEMs who build the HW device and integrating the OS to determine what is far versus near.

This is correct. I assume they would know best (could be a bad assumption, but seems that it would be in there interest to provide good sensors if they want to have a competitive product). Note that I was also advocating for having both the data and the HW/OS determined far/near.  
> Different proximity sensors might have different ranges. You also assuming that the OS will give you this "far" versus "near" value.  
>  

This is only an issue if we are seeing crazy variation in ranges… like 50cm to 1meter. I can research this a bit more. I don't imagine there is that much variation in the hardware for the the particular use case (though if anyone has some evidence to the contrary, please present it).  


I again would plead that we are clear about the use case. If we get agreement/consensus about what the use case is, then it might make the design of the API more straight forward.   


--  
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 23:48:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 23:48:34 GMT