Re: [Bug 23128] Add an explicit "get access to media" call

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote:

> Anne, your first link doesn't say that the approach was abandoned; it
> shows that in the notifications case, you have also given up on finding a
> better alternative.
>

With notifications it's especially hard to associate a permission grant
with a user action, because the whole point of notifications is that they
occur in the absence of a user action or even user attention. I assume
that's why they gave up trying to find a better solution for notifications.

It's unclear why the same would apply to "device access permissions".

The second link is Roc's opinion; I respect that opinion, but disagree with
> the conclusion.
>

:-)

Besides, our feet have been solidly planted on the "ask for permissions"
> path; if anything, this change helps alleviate the popup overload pain.
>
> As an IETF friend said in another context:
>
> "This is not about starting down the slippery slope. It's how far we slide
> into the muck at the bottom."
>

I don't follow this logic.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
*