W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Notifications

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:44:30 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1002231344o91c5396yc2d65c6cbf196979@mail.gmail.com>
To: ifette@google.com
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com>, Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@myrealbox.com>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
2010/2/23 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>:
> Am 23. Februar 2010 12:11 schrieb Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>:
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:20:13 +0100, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)
>> <ifette@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> CreateInteractiveNotification(in DOMString text-fallback, [Optional] in
>>> DOMString MimeType1, [Optional] in DOMString NotificationFormat1,
>>> [Optional]
>>> in DOMString MimeType2, [Optional] NotificationFormat2, ...)
>>>
>>> forgive my broken IDL, I'm sure there's a better way to express it, but
>>> you get the idea.
>>
>> I don't see why it cannot be just a URL. If the user agent "supports" the
>> type it will render it and it will fail otherwise. There's no need for
>> complex multi-level fallback here in my opinion, nobody is going to bother
>> with that anyway.
>
> <video> has multi-level fallback, so there is precedent for better or worse.
> That said, specifying a (set of) URL(s) may be fine, but I think it would
> still be nice for a UA to have fallback options. Is everyone going to use
> it? Probably not, but I think people that actually care would. E.g. if I
> have a property that I expect people on mobile devices to go to, I will make
> sure that it works on mobile devices, exactly as we do with properties today
> where we reasonably expect mobile users.

Yes, there are several features, such as <video> and <img> that have
fallback. However this is because there is no alternative other than
simply not introducing these features. I.e. we can't redesign <video>
in such a way that fallback for blind people isn't needed, due to
inherit visual properties of <video>.

The same is not true for the suggest notification API. Several
proposals have been put forward that do not rely on fallback.

I'm sure that if you ask any blind person they will tell you that the
amount of fallback provided for <img> is no where near enough. And I'm
fairly certain this isn't due to the fact that the majority of web
authors don't care about blind people.

So while I agree with some of your arguments, I don't at all buy the
argument that "there are other features out there that use fallback,
so it's ok here too", or "if people care, they'll provide fallback".

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 21:45:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:37 GMT