- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:28:36 +0100
- 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>
- Message-ID: <5dd9e5c51002231028v58a39417p8d1739c9bb60040c@mail.gmail.com>
This seems like a balance and all around reasonable way to move forward. 2010/2/23 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com> > 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>: > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Henri Sivonen <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 18:30:57 UTC