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

On 2013-12-05 16:05, 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".

As others have said, the app would get the same info as today. The 
difference would be that the user would know that the app asked to use 
the camera.

That said, I still think we have some experimenting to do to get to the 
right models. The UA could for example display info in the doorhanger 
("no camera with sufficient resolution found"). That's why I think we 
could consider leaving out the exact definition of the dialogue from the 
spec (just put something like "in a UA specific way" in).

>
> 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.)

Agreed, but it could do the same here, the difference would be that the 
user would have been informed of the first attempt already.

This also brings us back to the discussion on when the app should use 
mandatory constraints with gUM: only when the app would rather skip 
video (and/or audio) than not having those constraints met. This is what 
we have been saying all along, and we've even said that using mandatory 
constraints would be made more difficult.

Always launching a permission prompt would perhaps enforce this - the 
app developer would know that a prompt is launched even if there is a 
mandatory constraint that can't be met, so the developer would likely be 
careful and not put things that are not really mandatory as mandatory.

I would agree to that we have some experimenting left to do in terms of 
how to prompt, but perhaps that can be left to implementations? In the 
same way as the current consent prompting is.

>
> - 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 Sunday, 8 December 2013 12:38:31 UTC