Re: Permission-hint? (was Re: [Bug 22214] How long do permissions persist?)

It is more user friendly for the app to prompt once for all the cameras 
it needs.   On the other hand, if the app prompts multiple times, the 
user can allow some and deny others, while in your second example (app 
asks for both cameras) he cannot.  Is that just a matter of UI design?  
Could the prompt list the cameras separately, or do you have reasons not 
to want to do this?

One option for asking for multiple cameras would be to hack/kluge an 
extra argument into gUM that indicates that  the app will be asking for 
more devices.   So the app could call gUM multiple times but the user 
would be prompted only once the app indicated that it had made its final 
request.  (The parameter could be something like 'additionalRequest' 
with a default value of 'false'.  If gUM is called with 
'additionalRequest=true', the UA stores the description of the desired 
device but waits to display the permissions prompt.)

On 5/14/2014 3:24 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> On 5/14/14 8:49 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>> On 5/30/13 9:48 AM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote:
>>>> 4.  Suppose the app requests a camera and the user gives it permission to use
>>>> all cameras.  The app initially uses only a single camera but later decides
>>>> that it wants a different one.  Does it have to request permission again (given
>>>> that the user granted permission for all cameras)?
>> On 03/19/2014 03:34 PM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote:
>>> I think it's an UA design choice whether permission is given for a 
>>> particular
>>> camera or for all cameras.
>
> I agree it is a UA design choice, but I could use some help avoiding 
> "grant all".
>
> Specifically, I wish an app could hint that it might ask for more 
> cameras later, to reduce dialog-fatigue.
>
> Problem case A (please ignore camera-selectors in permission-prompts 
> here [1]):
>
>  1. User launches webapp Foo on their mobile.
>  2. Mobile says "Foo wants to use your front camera. Allow/Deny -
>     Remember my choice[x]"
>  3. User touches "Allow", with "Remember my choice [x]" checked.
>  4. User sees self and touches the "<->" back/front flip button that
>     Foo has.
>  5. It says "Foo wants to use your rear camera. Allow/Deny - Remember
>     my choice[x]"
>  6. User curses and touches "Allow" again, with "Remember my choice
>     [x]" checked.
>
>
> Given that Foo has a "flip" button (and is using constraints), it 
> seems superior to ask the user for both cameras upfront here (B=both):
>
>  1. User launches webapp Foo on their mobile.
>  2. Mobile says "Foo wants to use both of your cameras. Allow/Deny -
>     Remember my choice[x]"
>  3. User touches "Allow" with "Remember my choice [x]" checked.
>  4. User sees self and pushes the "<->" back/front flip button that
>     Foo has.
>  5. User sees the Eiffel Tower.
>
>
> Of course, we could always do B but it discourages "minimal access" 
> apps. For example: "Foo wants to use your front camera. Allow/Deny?" 
> is more comforting in a BossTalk app, if my boss doesn't know I'm in 
> Paris.
>
> Here's one idea: We could put in a hint [2], like:
>
>     getUserMedia({ video: { askPermissionFor:"one"|"all" } }, success, 
> failure);
>
> which UAs would be free to ignore.
>
> Or we could interpret a lack of constraints to mean "prefer grant-all" 
> - which I'm considering - but it seems like an overload.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>
> [1] Firefox has a camera-selector in the permission prompt, but we're 
> finding it's no panacea for not having good defaults.
> [2] Requesting multiple cameras is clearly out-of-scope, and I don't 
> want to talk about that.
>

-- 
Jim Barnett
Genesys