W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > December 2012

Re: How to check if permission denied?

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 21:15:24 +0100
Message-ID: <50C0FCDC.4030203@alvestrand.no>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:13 UTC