Hi Nick - Apologies for “de-lurking” in the middle of a thread… Just one quick thought in-line below: > On 13 Feb 2020, at 23:38, Nick Doty <npdoty@ischool.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > I’ve opened https://github.com/w3c/accelerometer/issues/54 <https://github.com/w3c/accelerometer/issues/54> to track the calibration concern for accelerometer (in addition to device orientation) and linked to this thread with Paul’s recommended mitigation. > > I’m not totally sure if a mitigation on the accelerometer API should apply to the LinearAcceleration and Gravity as well as default accelerometer sensor, but I suspect it would make sense to apply to all of them. We can discuss more details in the GitHub issue. I think it would be a good idea for any mitigation to apply to Gravity too. My reason for saying so is a bit tangential, but I hope it makes sense. At a recent event on quantum technology, several speakers expressed the view that quantum sensor technology would reach the “mass” market significantly before general purpose quantum computing. One of the variants is gravity sensors (!), which, in due course, they expect to be able to apply to navigation - “mapping” the gravitational topology around you, and matching it to a reference dataset. Of course, if the reference dataset exists, it can be used to geolocate you regardless of which technology is used to measure your “local” gravitational topology. Hope this is relevant, Yrs., Robin
Received on Friday, 14 February 2020 13:32:43 UTC