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

Charles

Thanks, looks like we have a way forward with PER. We should make sure there are no other errata before proceeding (and of course agree on this one).

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Chair, W3C Device APIs WG (DAP)

www.fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch

> On Feb 2, 2016, at 10:18 PM, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> 
> 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 12:39:56 UTC