- 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