Re: Device Orientation specification co-editor

Also, Dom and Rich have moved the current Device Orientation specification
to github for easier editing:
http://w3c.github.io/deviceorientation/spec-source-orientation.html



On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Tim Volodine <timvolodine@google.com>wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> I think your input is very valuable as you actually built something using
> the existing API :). It would be great if you could send us some
> pictures/3D models you have that you think would clarify the specification.
> Was there anything in particular you would like to see improved in the
> current specification aside from visual examples?
>
> Regarding Quaternion representation I think it would be good to have more
> justification for it's inclusion in the specification. Euler angles have
> known issues (at least theoretically e.g. gimbal lock) and were more or
> less abandoned in Android in favor of the quaternion representation. It is
> not clear though if this would be a useful addition for developers in
> Chrome. This may probably be worth a survey actually ;).
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Rob Manson <roBman@buildar.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> really glad to hear that you'll both be taking on the co-editing of this
>> spec! 8)
>>
>> If there's anything I can do to help please let me know. We'd definitely
>> be happy to contribute feedback on the javascript examples and we also have
>> a range of animations and 3D phone models already setup that could easily
>> be used to visually annotate the spec.
>>
>> In terms of enhancements I think there's two key areas that would be good
>> to look into.
>>
>> First, it would be great if the API also supported data in a format other
>> than just Euler angles. e.g. As a Quaternion and/or a Rotation Matrix.
>> NOTE: On the topic of Quaternions, I also found this interesting post
>> linked from inside some of the three.js documentation
>> http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/math-
>> and-physics/do-we-really-need-quaternions-r1199 - but I'm sure you guys
>> know a lot more about this topic than I do.
>>
>> Second, the "original orientation" point that Rich raised a few weeks ago
>> would be great to clarify. If different devices provide a different
>> reference frame then we will end up back in the same "confused UX"
>> situation we have been in recently 8(
>>
>> Also, it seems that the latest Firefox Beta on Android now implements the
>> spec more accurately so we've removed the special code fork we had for that
>> now. So this means we just need to remove the jumpiness from the Opera
>> implementation and then the three leading browsers on Android are all in a
>> workable state - w00t!
>>
>> roBman
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/02/14 9:11 AM, Rich Tibbett wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Tim, Dom,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>
>>>> On ven., 2014-01-31 at 13:30 +0000, Tim Volodine wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would also be willing to co-edit the Device Orientation/Motion
>>>>> specification. I have played a major part in implementing Device
>>>>> Motion in Chrome, as well as making sure that our Device Orientation
>>>>> implementation properly matches the specification.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> I believe Rich Tibbett from Opera also expressed interest in being an
>>>>> editor. I would be happy to edit the specification together.
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed, Rich has separately indicated interest on editing that spec;
>>>>
>>> Yes. I would be happy for us to tackle this together.
>>>
>>> In terms of my own background, I tested the original device
>>> orientation implementation in Opera Presto. I have also written a few
>>> orientation-based web-apps and I have also previously edited other W3C
>>> specs.
>>>
>>>  while we go through the chartering administrativia, I think it would be
>>>> great if you guys could start bringing edits based on the recent
>>>> discussions. Tim, do you already have write access to dev.w3.org where
>>>> the spec is currently hosted?
>>>> ( http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/geo/api/spec-source-orientation.html )
>>>>
>>>> [it might also be that Rich and you would determine you'd rather edit it
>>>> on github ]
>>>>
>>> I like the idea of doing this on Github mostly for its ability to
>>> track pull requests via its web interface. Doing this on Github may
>>> also come in handy for getting wider input from developers (e.g. for
>>> obtaining [ bug fixes / feedback / more JavaScript-based API examples
>>> ] for the spec).
>>>
>>> - Rich
>>>
>>>
>>
>