W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-status@w3.org > November 2011

Re: [vibration] Preliminary thoughts on the vibrator spec

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:44:08 +0100
Cc: ext Deepanshu gautam <deepanshu.gautam@huawei.com>, ext Justin Lebar <jlebar@mozilla.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "public-device-status@w3.org" <public-device-status@w3.org>
Message-Id: <51D70800-36FB-4AF7-9A8F-F2AD4F7CECED@berjon.com>
To: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
On Nov 16, 2011, at 09:57 , Anssi Kostiainen wrote:
> Couldn't the web app just ask the user to turn on the vibrator via the OS if needed, similarly to the way the volume control behaves? I.e. there's no way a web app can figure out if the device is muted, and the volume control is managed by the OS. This is the model users already understand, so I think we should reuse it.

I agree. Currently if a Web app tries to play sound and the sound is muted, nothing happens. That's the normal, expected behaviour and I don't think that we'll surprise anyone by sticking to it for vibration. In such cases the UA could indicate to the user that an unavailable functionality is being used (this would be really nice for sound actually) but that's a quality of implementation issue.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 09:44:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 November 2011 09:44:34 GMT