W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Proposed new text for noaccess

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:30:43 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C3C962D@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 2013-10-28 18:05, Martin Thomson wrote:

> I think that the state machine should be something like this:
>
> * -> none : ok, no consent
> * -> noaccess : no consent
> noaccess -> peeridentity : consent
> noaccess -> full : consent
> peeridentity -> full : forbidden
> full -> peeridentity -> ok, no consent
>
> The only thing that really concerns me is how the browser indicates
> that noaccess is not available to the site.  Assuming that this
> creep-out issue isn't that significant.  There are some interesting UX
> issues that arise around that.  I can think of many approaches:
> borders (potentially problematic), the word "preview" as a watermark
> over the video (no idea what to do for audio...), etc...

Do we really think that the average user would be able to understand 
different levels of (essentially) access to a camera or microphone?

And with the current UIs, would we not get to a click through behavior? 
E.g. the site first asks for "peeridentity"-access, the user clicks 
"accept", the site upgrades and the user gets a new prompt and does not 
read/understand the difference and just clicks accept again?

>
>


Received on Monday, 28 October 2013 17:31:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:20 UTC