Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC) Web Notifications Comments

On 10/4/2013 4:33 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:15:46 +0100, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> 
> wrote:
>
>> If you have objections, questions, additions, or edits to propose,
>> please respond to this email no later than close of business Boston time
>> Friday 4 October.
>
>> James Nurthen writes:
>
>>>  * The API specifies the ability to supply an icon without the ability
>>>    to specify any text alternative for the icon. The Spec should make
>>>    clear that the message supplied must make sense even if the icons
>>>    are not available.
>
> I think our experience suggests that people *will* use the icons to 
> have meaning that is not communicated independently of the icon. I 
> suggest that we actually need an ability to provide alternative 
> content for the icon. Having redundant information in the notification 
> itself makes no sense - space in notifications is typically at a 
> premium, so this would represent pretty second-rate design.

Chaals,
I agree with your comment. My previous experience has been that asking 
for a change like this is normally met with resistance but I do agree 
that we should ask for it nonetheless.

Regards,
James

>
> Given that notifications are created in JS more or less in real time, 
> a plain string is enough (assuming that the internationalisation story 
> is really correct).
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>

Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 18:12:26 UTC