- From: Lukasz Olejnik via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:21:38 +0000
- To: public-device-apis-log@w3.org
I agree there is a room for good design here. Any suggestion (food for thought) welcome. > there's no point asking a user for the permission to access a sensor you know they do not have, Correct, can we defer it to the implementor? This sounds like a browser issue ("not prompting when it's not necessary", e.g. returning 'denied' after some random delay), so can we just provide a non-normative suggestion? > it might be useful to explain to a user that they're forgoing some features by denying permission to access a sensor. It's impossible to do that if you can't distinguish between permission denied and missing hardware. Again, sounds like a browser item? At the spec level: (1) ask for permission (2) then check for a flag marking if a sensor exists (or "works"), or error out even - but after point (1). > it's good to advise a user that they're sensor got disconnected or is suddenly no longer working, it's useless to tell them this if they actually revoked access. A webapp can still provide information that "this app works better with sensor X enabled". I understand and agree with your timeout comment ;) -- GitHub Notification of comment by lknik Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/145#issuecomment-260706425 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2016 17:21:44 UTC