Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] WebUSB (#108)

Although late to this thread, I'd still like to give some input from my experience with WebUSB.

Web USB API only allow communication with devices that

1. Are first 'paired' by user interaction 
2. Have very specific Web USB descriptors & a Web USB comm interface defined in firmware
3. optionally, have a white list of allowed origins

On top of this, from an OS (especially windows) point of view, Web USB eliminates potential security risks from shady drivers.

off-topic - bear with me, please ;) ->

Outside the security aspects, I feel it's important to mention that Web USB, together with Web Bluetooth, Web Components and Progressive Web Applications, has shown (actual experience) to create a solid viable migration path for especially legacy companies stuck with potentially expensive hardware out in the field and aging native implementations with an ever increasing maintenance cost attached. 

(to remove misunderstandings):

* Web USB: very minimal firmware upgrade 'web enables' legacy hardware
* Web Components: larger non-SW (only) legacy companies often have long lived code bases and can't rely on frameworks changing ever so often.
* PWA:  HW connected enterprise legacy solutions should often work 'as a native app'/offline

Web USB and Web Bluetooth are essential parts in those solutions.



-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/108#issuecomment-329181761