- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:05:58 +0000
- To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Hi David, On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 17:46, David Bruant wrote: > > What happens? > 1) The device vibrates for a second then logs 'yo' Nope. > 2) The device starts vibrating, logs 'yo' while vibrating and ends vibrating yep. > 3) something else (explain) > > Case 1 would be an aberrant waste of CPU time especially for long > sequences of vibrate/idle. Also games are known to use UX trick to > compute things in the background. Vibrating to deconcentrate the user > may be one of these tricks. Yep, it's async. > > In case of 2, how do you know when the device stopped vibrating? I don't think that information is available, unfortunately. > I > assume knowing when the device stopped vibrating is an important > information when you want your user to have a compelling experience. Maybe, what's the use case you were thinking of? I think it's deliberately designed to be "fire and forget". > Step 3, 5 and 7 of the processing vibration patterns algorithm mention > implementation-dependent limits and throw according to these. However, > an application has no way to know these limits, so an application can't > adapt its behavior to different implementation limits. I think it would > be nice of the implementation to provide these limits as constants. > I'm afraid that from an application author perspective, the only > alternative is try out values to figure out the limits and "try out > values" means actually vibrating or do weird hacks like: > > try{ > navigator.vibrate(10000); > navigator.vibrate(0); // cancel vibration if it occured What use case did you have in mind for knowing the limits?
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 23:06:28 UTC