Re: Proposal for "default services" parameter in IntentParameters dictionary

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Josh Soref <jsoref@rim.com> wrote:

> Deepanshu Gautam wrote:
> > ... what is wrong in having an empty picker?
>
> James Hawkins wrote:
> > there are several reasons an empty picker should be avoided at all costs:
> > * It's a confusing user experience, since we're presenting UI to *do
> something* and the user is unable to complete the action.
>
> Authors refuse to use APIs where users give up in frustration or are
> challenged and fail.
>
> We get API requests to let them determine in advance if things will work -
> "is there a provider registered for this intent?" - that question is
> because authors don't want users to get stuck with a confusing empty dialog.
>

Exactly, which reminds me of the origin of this parameter: RPH/RCH have
methods to check if a protocol/content handler is registered so they have
an option to not lead the user into this empty picker scenario.  We did not
add this method to Web Intents due to the ability to use it for
fingerprinting, which required us to find a different solution for the
empty picker problem.


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> information, privileged material (including material protected by the
> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from
> your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
> transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
>
>