- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 21:15:24 +0100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 12/06/2012 08:53 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 6 December 2012 11:31, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: >> And, similarly from an usability perspective, I'm convinced that mandatory >> constraints are necessary. >> One of us must be wrong. > I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I am wrong. Let me try > to summarize: > > My concern, specifically, is that application developers will be able > to create applications that "work on my machine", but fail for their > users by using mandatory constraints that result in failure for some > users. And I'm not worried about that, because I believe that app developers who think that they can deliver adequate performance under these conditions will either not constrain, or use optional constraints. > > Your concern, as I understand it, is that application developers will > be unable to select devices that are not suitable for their > application because removing mandatory constraints allows the user to > select unsuitable devices. Rephrasing slightly (there was a dangling "not" there): I'm afraid that application developers will be unable to avoid selecting devices that give a bad user experience. App vendors (with Dan being one of the vocal ones, I think, but he can speak for himself) have said that they want to be able to tell the user "you need to do X to use this application/mode/function" instead of fielding the support call that says "why does this app look so bad when I don't do X". > > Is that right? I did not mention any cases where mandatory > constraints could be "tested" without consent dialogs because we have > no such API, and none currently proposed. Yes, with the dangling "not" edited. I don't think we've changed opinions much recently. > > --Martin
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 20:15:58 UTC