- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:24:25 -0500
- To: ifette@google.com
- CC: John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com>, Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@myrealbox.com>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Hi, Ian- I generally agree with you, and certainly with your sentiment. Not to go all SVG on you, but why "*HTMLNotification"? I understand that HTML is really common, and that increasingly SVG can be used as part of HTML, but there are lots of devices out there (TVs, mobiles, set-top boxes) that use SVG rather than HTML, which would benefit from these interactive notifications... shouldn't we define a more generic "CreateWebNotification" and pass an optional MIME Type parameter that defaults to "text/html" (or some similar mechanism)? I strongly agree with the sentiment that we should design for the future, in any case, and not limit ourselves to simple text notifications. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote (on 2/23/10 1:06 PM): > This thread seems to have languished, and I'm trying to figure out how > to move forward here. > > My understanding, grossly simplified, of the current state of the world > is this: > > 1. Some people have a desire to show HTML / interactive notifications, > to support use cases like "remind me of this calendar event again in 5 > minutes" or "Answer this call / hang up this call." > 2. Some people have a concern that the proposed way to achieve 1, namely > allowing HTML, will result in certain platform notification systems > (Growl, NotifyOSD etc) not to be used. > > I will disclose my biases up front and say that I do believe the use > cases that 1) tries to support are important. (I want to be able to > interact with a calendar notification to say "remind me again" or "take > me to the full details of the event," for instance). I also am of the > belief regarding #2, being unable to find any actual data on how many > users have and use growl, that the user base falls into roughly two > camps. There's the people who have gone out and downloaded Growl (or > another notification service) because they want everything coalesced, > and then there's the people who don't really care, and if mail.app wants > to tell them something vs their browser wants to tell them something, > they don't really think much of it. > > I think that initially, we can do a lot more for this second group in > terms of functionality that we can provide, and would find it > unfortunate if we held up forward progress because of a current > implementation detail. If that functionality proves to be useful and > desired by a number of users, I believe that platforms like Growl and > NotifyOSD will find a way to make it work. In the meantime though, I > think there are relatively simple things we can do to not leave these > users in the dark. > > 1, for the CreateHTMLNotification call, we could still allow a text > version of the notification to be provided. If there's a significant > number of users whose platforms don't support HTML Notifications, I > think there's a reasonable chance that would be filled out. If 20% of > users didn't see images, alt= text would be more prevalent. > 2. For the case where there is no text alternative provided by the > website for the HTML notification, the UA can make a best effort at > transforming the HTML notification to a text notification, optionally > with whatever markup the UA provides for text notifications (bold, > links, etc). Obviously things may not be perfect and it would be > preferable if the author of the page provided a notification, but the > world is not perfect. > 3. Let the user decide which notification mechanism they prefer. If the > user prefers HTML notifications, then they get whatever the UA > implements. If the user has an alternate notification provider they > prefer, then they live with the constraints of that notification system, > but either way it's a tradeoff that the user can make. And yes, in the > near term some of this may be prohibitive on mobile devices, but so are > many things (try as they might, mobile browsers still aren't a pleasure > to work with when it comes to viewing large complex sites or sites that > use flash, etc). > > I strongly believe that web applications are increasing in number, in > scope, and are becoming an integral part of people's lives. As web > applications expand, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that > support for HTML in the platform (e.g. HTML in notification providers) > will happen some day. It's not going to be immediate, and so I have > outlined some ideas that I hope may get us moving in the meanwhile, but > I don't want us to fall victim to the argument of "well, right now it's > hard so let's not do it." > > My $0.02. > > Am 12. Februar 2010 12:50 schrieb John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com > <mailto:johnnyg@google.com>>: > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com > <mailto:atwilson@google.com>> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi > <mailto:hsivonen@iki.fi>> wrote: > > > On Feb 11, 2010, at 16:07, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > > > As has been brought up repeatedly, growl and the other > notification engines are used by a SMALL FRACTION of all web > users. I suspect a fraction of a percent. Why are we > bending over backwards to make this system work on those > platforms? > > More seriously though: Virtually every user of an up-to-date > Ubuntu installation has the notification engine installed. > As for Growl, the kind of users who install Growl are > presumably the kind of users who care about notifications of > multiple concurrent things the most. Furthermore, it seems > that notifications are becoming more a part of operating > system platfroms. For example, it looks like Windows 7 has a > system API for displaying notifications: > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee330740%28VS.85%29.aspx > > This is a useful data point. It does seem like the major > platforms are conforming to a simple icon + title + text > interface for ambient notifications. The microsoft API seems > more aligned with NotifyOSD (non-interactable notifications with > a transient status tray icon provided to allow the user to > click). I suspect a UA on those platforms (NotifyOSD and > Microsoft) would display an icon with each notification to give > the user the ability to register a click on and/or dismiss the > notification. > > > Are there other examples where we've dumbed down an API to > the least common denominator for a small fraction of users? > Especially when there's no technical reason why these > providers could not be made more advanced (for example, > embed webkit to display fully functional notifications)? > > It's not a given that it's an advancement in user experience > terms not to force all ambient notifications into a > consistent form. > > > I think this is a reasonable point also. I also want to > reiterate that your distinction between ambient and interactive > notifications is an interesting one - most of the system > notification frameworks are geared towards ambient notifications > (it's why NotifyOSD does not support the DBUS "actions" array, > I'm assuming). Their core use cases are things like "your > printer is out of paper", not "You have an incoming voice call > from Bob. Answer the call? Yes/No". > > I think the challenge here is framing our API in a way to allow > developers to specify their intent (interactive vs ambient), > with more restrictions on ambient content. The current spec > makes one cut at this via "createNotification" vs > "createHTMLNotification", but it's not at all clear that HTML > notifications are intended to be interactive rather than just > pretty versions of ambient notifications (hence, Jonas' concern > that developers will just create HTML notifications when what > they really want is an ambient notification). > > > In terms of how I wrote the current draft, HTML vs Text+Icon has > nothing to do with notifications being ambient or persistent. It is > really just about the content of the notification. It would > completely acceptable to me to have HTML notifications which are > always ambient: they show up for a few seconds, then they go away, > but if the user wants to interact with the dynamic content during > those seconds it's possible. > > The problem is that none of the popular ambient notification > providers support HTML, so the assumption is that HTML = another new > window or HTML = mandatory acknowledgement. However that's not > necessarily true. > > One solution is only to support ambient notifications (which is > essentially the thrust of the "no HTML" argument), but I'd be > opposed to any API that does not allow for interactive > notifications. I suppose that's a discussion for the > requirements thread, though :) > > Nothing in the current draft spec requires a UA to make Web > Notifications of either type persistent - a UA which only supports > ambient (self-closing) notifications could already be conforming, as > long as clicks that do happen are passed back to the web page. > > -John > > --
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:24:44 UTC