- From: Marcos Cáceres via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:23:38 +0000
- To: public-device-apis-log@w3.org
@egirard wrote: > In spite of the prevailing opinion, there remains a meaningful use case for haptics. For example, native apps have access to haptics in [ios](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/corehaptics), [macOS](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/appkit/nshapticfeedbackperformer), [android](https://developer.android.com/develop/ui/views/haptics), and [windows](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/uwp/api/windows.devices.haptics?view=winrt-22621). Absolutely. The utility of haptics as a UI affordance is not in question. It's the context and how the APIs are exposed and used that is, as well as the current form being "Recommended" by the W3C. > I don't have insight into how actively these APIs are used, but there are many examples of haptic feedback being used effectively in native apps. It would be unfortunate to limit web developers access. Right, and that's not what's in question in this issue. As I mentioned, revisiting haptics in the appropriate context is in the purview of the Web Apps WG. See Gamepad API, for instance - or [Microsoft's proposal](https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/HapticsDevice/explainer.md) How it was done with the Vibration API is what's in question here. -- GitHub Notification of comment by marcoscaceres Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/vibration/issues/33#issuecomment-2161884886 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2024 01:23:40 UTC