- From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:26:16 +0000
- To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com>, Anant Narayanan <anant@mozilla.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
>-----Original Message----- >From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L [mailto:bs3131@att.com] > >Anant, > >I note that DAP has been down this road though before, unsuccessfully. The >permissions model, if more than single-shot allow/deny, gets into >complicated areas of defining a session or managing persistent permissions. >And there is no guarantee that the user who gave permission is the user >whose streams are being captured later. In BONDI/WAC, we developed what I >think was a simple and flexible model for procedural API permissions (even >given the limitations noted above), but DAP failed to reach consensus on >that approach, and as a result DAP shifted to the declarative/markup API >approach you see in HTML Media Capture. Having started down that path, >isn't the declarative approach an option here, and being user-intentional, >doesn't it provide adequate consent verification? Determining how >getUserMedia would be accessible only through markup (e.g. through >"onclick" or as an input type) would need to be decided. But I think it >might avoid the UI/permissions-definition issues that a prompt approach >carries. > >I do think that getting specific about how the chrome should show what >devices are in use is a good discussion to have, but this also gets close >to differentiation needs for browsers. > >So overall I would be less worried that the UX would vary significantly >across browsers (real experience might result in convergence on the one >that works best, or we might find that the multiple approaches do not >confuse users after all), as compared to spending significant time going >down the prompt system rabbit hole. > >But if we want to explore this again, wire frame illustrations at least >would help clarify the depth of detail and choice that you are recommending >we define. It might turn out simpler that what we had considered before. I think that mandating a particular UI in an API spec is not appropriate. However, the spec may certainly contain non-normative sections on UI suggestions that support the security concepts described in the spec. (This is similar to how HTML5 doesn't mandate a particular UI for certain form elements, but does have suggestions on what they could look like.) >Thanks, >Bryan Sullivan
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 18:27:04 UTC