RE: Bug 23934 - Proposal: Always launch permission prompt to avoid leakage

Stefan,
  My concern is whether the UA will know enough about the unsatisfied mandatory constraints to prompt the user intelligibly.  Martin says that he doesn't think that the UA will be able to explain what the constraints mean.  If that's the case, won't the user experience be pretty bad?  "You do not have a device that satisfies this application's requirements.  Please insert random objects into your USB slot and maybe something will work".  

If we say that it's the app's job to explain what it needs, it will need to know which constraints weren't satisfied.  That brings us back to the current definition of gUM (where the app finds out which constraints failed and then can decide whether to remove them and try again.)

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Håkansson LK [mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 4:48 AM
To: Jim Barnett; Martin Thomson; Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer; public-media-capture@w3.org; Adam Bergkvist
Subject: Re: Bug 23934 - Proposal: Always launch permission prompt to avoid leakage

I think my views are quite similar to Martin's.

I think that perhaps we could leave a lot of this up to implementations (e.g. what kind of info is displayed if no device that meets the mandatory constraints is available). For the case were suitable devices are found, the current draft says "Prompt the user in a user agent specific manner for permission...". We can use similar phrasing for cases when no devices that meet mandatory constraints are found.

On 2013-12-03 18:11, Jim Barnett wrote:
> I'm trying to understand the proposal better, and have a couple of
> questions:
>
> 1. In the case where one or more devices meet the mandatory 
> constraints, are they the only ones that are presented to the user?

This question is not related to the "Always launch permission prompt" 
proposal per se, it is related to mandatory constraints used with gUM.

It is something we need to agree on; and the first level we need to agree on is whether this must be specified or can be left to the UA to decide.


>
> 2. In the case where no device meets the mandatory constraints, do we 
> assume that the UA can explain the constraints clearly enough so that 
> the user can tell what sort of device is needed?

Perhaps we do not need to spec this, perhaps something like "Inform the user in a user agent specific manner that the page asked for access to cameras/microphones but that no devices that met the requirements were found." is enough.

>
> 3. In the case where no device meets the constraints, do we present a 
> list of all attached devices to the user?  Would we let him select a 
> microphone when the app has asked for a camera?

Of course not. The first level of constraints with gUM is "audio" or "video", and you can't use one in place of the other.

>
> - Jim
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Martin Thomson 
> [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013
> 12:01 PM To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer; Stefan 
> Hakansson LK; public-media-capture@w3.org; Jim Barnett; Adam Bergkvist 
> Subject: Re: Bug 23934 - Proposal: Always launch permission prompt to 
> avoid leakage
>
> On 3 December 2013 08:57, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>> The question is what happened when none of the devices meet the 
>> constraints. Do you pop a dialog up to the user that says "Hey, your 
>> web page wanted to something that they can not have. Wait some random 
>> amount of time before deciding to click OK to dismiss this dialog".
>
> You are right, that is the question.
>
> That's an implementation choice as far as I'm concerned.  The site 
> isn't going to get an answer, so I'm not sure that there is much point 
> in asking a user, but I'm of the opinion that a user should be able to 
> make the choice still.  Maybe the "choice" involves plugging a device 
> in that does meet constraints.
>

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 15:05:56 UTC