W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > November 2014

Re: Vibration

From: Michael van Ouwerkerk <mvanouwerkerk@google.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:42:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAF40kP7xBjvsvRnLPtPQYHbBhg=W7LXNT+zjsJWXH-L2dRTR1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Device APIs Working Group <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kostiainen, Anssi
> <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:
> > Improved the "perform vibration" steps:
> >
> >   http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/vibration/#dfn-perform-vibration
> >
> > Would "this context" work considering reusability in other contexts?
>
> "this context" doesn't really mean anything which is why I suggested
> to just omit it. We don't really need to be super precise here I think
> since this seems like an implementation detail (or something
> implementations can compete on in terms of quality). No need for
> interoperability.
>
>
> >> (Should navigator.vibrate() be present in workers by the way?)
> >
> > The known implementations do not expose this to workers currently. That
> would require a bit more refactoring. Perhaps that'd be a v2 feature after
> some experimentation in code first.
>
> Fair.
>

Page visibility is an important limiter of the Vibration API. I suppose
this could work with dedicated workers, but shared workers and service
workers seem like a bad fit.

/m


>
> --
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 14:43:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:04 UTC