- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 12:00:28 -0500
- To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, public-media-capture@w3.org
On 06/12/2013 3:00 AM, Adam Bergkvist wrote: > Gili, isn't Jav-Ivar's proposal in [1] a reasonable compromise here? > > A prompt is always shown, and if there are no devices matching the > mandatory constraints, a generic message informs the user about it. In > addition to the "Deny" button, that always discards the dialog and > reports PERMISSION_DENIED to the application, there is a button > (replacing the "Allow" button) that lets the user report the problem > to the application (in the form of a CONSTRAINTS_NOT_SATISFIED error). > > So if a gUM() dialog unexpectedly appear on a random page, I can press > "Deny" to not leak anything. But on a page where gUM() is expected, I > can click the "Report" button and let the application explain the > problem to me. > > /Adam > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2013Dec/0033.html What you are proposing is quite different from my understanding of the original proposal. For one, the user *knows* he is denying access (and so the error reported to the application is actually valid). Furthermore, the "Report" button helps with debuggability and usability. I would support your variation of this proposal. Gili
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 17:01:00 UTC