>Beyond permissions, it really feels to me like there needs to be some additional drawbacks for use of this API that would encourage developers to use the privacy-preserving WebXR AR APIs instead unless the really need Raw Camera access. Have you considered this approach in the working group? It's already challenging to correctly communicate the implications of the "privacy-preserving" WebXR AR APIs to users. Trying to communicate an intermediate level of protection, such that a user is meaninfully more likely to accept the WebXR raw camera permission over the regular camera permission, seems almost impossible. Given that I'm on the side of positioning this more as equivalent to the regular camera permission, and leveraging the strong existing user mental model around what granting camera access means. This seems better than the alternative of creating a new type of very-almost-camera that doesn't have the existing mental model to lean on. Perhaps it's worth highlighting the fact that the site could have just asked for regular WebXR access, but is explictly asking for camera, so users don't build the model that raw camera access is "just part of doing WebXR". -- 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/652#issuecomment-918156353
Received on Monday, 13 September 2021 12:49:02 UTC