Re: Request to obsolete Vibration API (Second Edition)

I have raised this concern in w3c/vibration#33
<https://github.com/w3c/vibration/issues/33> for the working group to
discuss. The TAG obsoletion request is unnecessary (and unwarranted) since
this group is still active.
Reilly Grant | Software Engineer | reillyg@chromium.org | Google Chrome
<https://www.google.com/chrome>


On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 6:17 PM Marcos Caceres <marcosc@apple.com> wrote:

> Dear Device and Sensors WG and TAG for input,
>
> I am requesting that DAS consider the following specification:
> - [Vibration API (Second Edition)](https://www.w3.org/TR/vibration/)
>
> be considered for:
> - [x] obsolete (of a W3C Recommendation)
>
> **Rationale for why the above action should be taken:**
>
> The W3C Vibration API is falsely claiming to be implemented by Firefox, as
> indicated in the [implementation report](
> https://w3c.github.io/test-results/vibration/20141118.html). In reality,
> Firefox only has the stubs in place to pretend it supports vibration for
> web compatibility reasons. Mozilla disabled haptics years ago due to
> concerns over user annoyance. Furthermore, the specification hasn't
> received interest from any other implementer in years. Therefore, the DAS
> should consider obsoleting it as it's a W3C Recommendation on false
> pretenses.
>
> Additional reasons for obsoleting the Vibration API include:
>
> - **Privacy Concerns**: The Vibration API can potentially be used in
> conjunction with other APIs to track or fingerprint devices. For instance,
> by generating specific vibration patterns and monitoring the timing and
> response of those vibrations through sensors or other feedback mechanisms,
> malicious actors could create a unique identifier for a device. This risk
> is heightened when combined with other data points, leading to more
> accurate device or user tracking. The specification itself already
> acknowledges these privacy concerns, but they remain unresolved in practice.
>
> - **User Experience**: Haptic feedback from vibration can be perceived as
> intrusive and annoying by users, which is why some browsers have disabled
> or limited its use.
>
> - **Technological Redundancy**: Modern devices and platforms offer more
> advanced and flexible haptic feedback mechanisms that are not reliant on
> the web's Vibration API.
>
> - **Lack of Adoption by Implementers**: The specification hasn't received
> interest from any other implementer in years, indicating that it does not
> meet a strong demand for this to be part of the web platform.
>
> The following implementations of this specification are known:
> - Firefox (stubs only, not functional)
> - Chrome
>
> Filing this along with a TAG request:
> [image: 7.png]
>
> Vibration API (Second Edition) · Issue #7 · w3ctag/obsoletion
> <https://github.com/w3ctag/obsoletion/issues/7>
> github.com <https://github.com/w3ctag/obsoletion/issues/7>
> <https://github.com/w3ctag/obsoletion/issues/7>
>
> Thanks for your consideration,
> Marcos Cáceres
>
>