Re: [vibration] Returning false if vibration hardware is not present?

On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 03:13:52 +0100, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>  
wrote:

>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 3:17 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi  
>> <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Jan 2016, at 02:47, Philip Rogers <pdr@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've filed this as a bug against Chromium. If you'd like to follow  
>>> along, star https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=579628.
>>
>> Thanks -- you got one more star from me :-)
>>
>>> It may make sense to explicitly call this usecase out in the spec. The  
>>> ambiguous language makes this difficult to rely on.
>>
>> Good idea.
>>
>> Frederick - I guess we should add this informative clarification to the  
>> errata?
>
> We can definitely decide on an the text for an update, have a group CfC  
> to confirm consensus on it, update the errata document accordingly.
>
>> However, there lies a practical issue that not everyone looks at errata.
>
> Everyone *should* look at the errata, linked from the first page of  
> every W3C rec.

Yes they *should*. But as Anssi says, they *don't*. (They also eat  
unhealthy food, drive too fast, and don't give me all their money when I  
ask for it…)

>> Could we also update the Editor's Draft to match, perhaps rename it to  
>> "Level 2" or such?
>
> We can update the editors draft but it has no standing, i.e. 'draft'.
>
> Given that the changes are an editorial clarification, best would be an  
> expedited publication update for the Rec -  I'm not aware of such a  
> thing, maybe there now is, need to check.

There is - and has been for a long time for non-substantive changes.  
Proposed Edited Recommendation -  
https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-rec

(Roughly, if there are no technical changes then you can request a new  
Proposed Recommendation if the Working Group has consensus to do so).

cheers

>>> Taking off my browser dev hat and putting on my web developer hat...  
>>> On my site, given the current language of the spec, I have no option  
>>> but to detect desktop browsers and show a warning for them. This  
>>> doesn't work for devices like the Nexus 7 without vibration hardware,  
>>> but it covers the common case since most mobile devices have vibration  
>>> hardware.
>>
>> Seems like a reasonable UX.
>>
>> If the feature is considered progressive enhancement by web developers  
>> there should be no issue. For those use cases that have this feature on  
>> the critical path, should inform the user that the UX could compromised  
>> on devices that do not support the feature.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Anssi
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Chair, W3C Device APIs WG (DAP)
>
> www.fjhirsch.com
> @fjhirsch
>
>
>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
  chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2016 03:18:47 UTC