- From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 12:12:09 +0100
- To: 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. This ("unintentional lock out effect") concern was earlier brought up by Rich Tibbet and discussed a bit on August 27th - it is all in the archive. I don't think the discussion at that time really concluded in anything else than that if a developer uses mandatory constraints the lock out effect is a risk that developer takes. Adam's recent proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Dec/0059.html) has the merit that it informs the user that the camera(s) are detected by the UA (even though the app does not approve them). This might save some time for the user trying to understand why the service can not be used (and perhaps save a trip to the dealer for returning the camera). The drawback would be for application developers who'd like to avoid involving/informing the user at all if there is no device fulfilling the mandatory constraints.
Received on Friday, 7 December 2012 11:12:44 UTC