- From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 13:25:26 -0500
- To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
- CC: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
On 12/5/13 10:05 AM, Jim Barnett wrote: > 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". Again, only the "Allow" choice is suppressed in this proposal. If the user ever presses the "Deny" choice (maybe it's called "OK" or "More info", whatever) then the error callback will fire and the app can say "Sorry" and thoroughly explain what it's requirements are. That seems reasonable to me, given that no consent is given. Personally, I prefer a generic message rather than "meatspaces.org says your camera is pointing the wrong way". If we're not satisfied with this, perhaps we could explore an "Allow" choice that would grant the app access to produce a better error message. But isn't that what "optional" already does? .: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 18:25:58 UTC