W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: [gamepad] Haptic Feedback/Controller Vibration

From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 14:35:53 +0000
To: Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>
CC: Ted Mielczarek <ted@mozilla.com>, Brandon Jones <bajones@google.com>, Patrick Martin <patrick.martin.r@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8E8315A2-90B9-47F3-87EE-9C1484B7E11F@intel.com>
On 04 Apr 2014, at 17:06, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:
> In the initial versions of the spec we indeed considered such reuse. Here’s my recent summary:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2014Apr/0002.html
> If you have a  navigator.gamepads and a navigator.vibrator how do you know which vibrator belongs to which gamepad? And do you want to end up with a navigator.forcefeedback, navigator.flightPedals, navigator.spacemice, navigator.hapticdevice, navigator.hotas, navigator.thrustquadrant, navigator.artificialHorizons, navigator.radioPanels, navigator.touchscreens, navigator.trimPanel, navigator.missileControl, navigator.steeringWheel, navigator.carPedals, navigator.racingWheel, navigator.gearStick, navigator.joyStick, navigator.etc? And how would you know which of those belong together into one device?

One way to spec that would be to make Vibration its own interface, and say GamePad implements Vibration. For more advanced use cases (borrowing one from your list):

interface SteeringWheel {
  readonly attribute Vibration[] vibras;

Based on what I hear, it sounds like we’d likely need its own interface that is more capable than the current Vibration.


Received on Friday, 4 April 2014 14:36:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:23 UTC