Re: [sensors] Relation to Permissions API

I've explained my position about this issue here: https://github.com/w3c/ambient-light/issues/23#issuecomment-295726399

And in particular:

> For ALS, I agree we don't seem to have use cases that require anything beyond the granularity of the CSS Light Level API. […]
>
> That said, we have such use cases for sensors beyond ALS, notably motion sensors. The use cases for motion sensors require high precision and high frequency (120Hz and beyond). Furthermore, as the data is often integrated, mitigating privacy concerns by adding noise to the data samples (or even to their timestamps) isn't really an option as its effect would be exponential.
>
> Hence we have to solve this issue for motion sensors. Once we do, we might find this solution applies just as well to ALS, or instead ditch ALS altogether for now in favor of a mediaquery-inspired LightLevelSensor.

In short: we *need* to find an acceptable solution for motion sensors. If we don't the whole exercise is moot (we'll basically have failed). If we do, we can probably use that solution _as is_ on ALS.

In the meantime, we _may_ attempt to move forward with LightLevel instead, but if we do this _will_ imply liaising with the CSS WG. This _might_ considerably delay us.

I recommend:

1. putting ALS on the back-burner.
2. attempting to solve permission issues for motion sensors.
3. then only figuring out whether to revive ALS, switch to LLS, or do both in parallel.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tobie
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/183#issuecomment-297701415 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 27 April 2017 12:38:59 UTC