Re: User agent context for rendering the presentation (was: Re: Google/Mozilla Presentation API update)

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Bassbouss, Louay <
louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:

>  Since there is no  distinction between the 1UA and 2UAs case on API
> level, it will be hard even impossible for developers to know which device
> API is used (on which device).
>
>
>
> louay
>

This seems to be a general issue with the Device Orientation and Device
Motion APIs.  I don't think the Web author can assume that they are
supported on all devices (since they may not have the appropriate sensors)
and must code accordingly?

In the worst case the presentation can query the appropriate APIs after
loading and signal back to the originating page to inform the user that the
motion- or orientation-controlled presentation will work or not.

m.


>
>
> *From:* Anton Vayvod [mailto:avayvod@google.com]
> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 21. August 2014 18:33
> *To:* Mark Watson
> *Cc:* Bassbouss, Louay; Jonas Sicking; mark a. foltz; John Mellor;
> Francois Daoust; public-webscreens@w3.org; Marco Chen; Wesley Johnston;
> Evelyn Hung
>
> *Subject:* Re: User agent context for rendering the presentation (was:
> Re: Google/Mozilla Presentation API update)
>
>
>
> Yes. I think that having local device APIs enabled for the 1-UA case is
> not about being able to distinguish the two cases but about the presented
> page being confused since it would get the data from the device it's
> running on rather than the one where the user sees it. On one hand the
> developer could then use the DeviceMotion directly on the presented page to
> control the game, for example, but on the other hand it wouldn't work as it
> is in the 2-UA case.
>
>
>
> I believe our goal is to make developers write code once for both 1-UA and
> 2-UA cases so separation of the locally rendered presentation from the
> device is vital.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Anton Vayvod <avayvod@google.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi Louay,
>
>
>
> I think that in the 2-UA case, whatever the remote UA has should be
> enabled so that the presented page could use it. In the 1-UA case,
> everything should be disabled by default allowing the UA to add whatever
> information it has about the screen it's presenting on.
>
>
>
> ​Surely the two cases should be indistinguishable from the pages point of
> view ?
>
>
>
> ...Mark​
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anton.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Bassbouss, Louay <
> louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Jonas, I agree to not disable  every device API It is important for
> Multiscreen applications to have the same behavior independent from 1 or 2
> UAs. Which device API do you think it is important to keep it enabled for
> the presenting page?
>
> Regards,
> Louay
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc]
> > Sent: Mittwoch, 20. August 2014 23:43
> > To: Bassbouss, Louay
> > Cc: mark a. foltz; John Mellor; Anton Vayvod; Francois Daoust; public-
> > webscreens@w3.org; Marco Chen; Wesley Johnston; Evelyn Hung
> > Subject: Re: User agent context for rendering the presentation (was: Re:
> > Google/Mozilla Presentation API update)
> >
> > DeviceOrientation events is definitely a very interesting question. I
> would be
> > ok with disabling those when the presentation page is running "on the
> > device" rather than "on the TV". Though for the 2 UA case I think it
> would be
> > fine to expose the orientation of the "TV". Consider the case of
> displaying a
> > presentation on a tablet rather than a TV for example.
> >
> > So maybe rather than disabling DeviceOrientation, we should define that
> if
> > possible, the events should reflect the orientation of the device that
> the
> > presentation stuff. If it's not possible to get accurate information
> about that,
> > then disable the API.
> >
> > Though it would be good if things like the screen orientation API, and
> APIs for
> > getting window size, reflected the the orientation and size of the
> window on
> > the TV.
> >
> > I also don't think it's generally true that we should disable all device
> APIs. For
> > example I think we should expose any game controllers that are exposed to
> > whatever device the page runs on. If it runs "on the device" we expose
> > controllers connected to the device, if it runs "on the TV" we expose any
> > controllers connected to the TV. Pages are not going to come to depend on
> > game controllers being connected anyway.
> >
> > / Jonas
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Bassbouss, Louay
> > <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > > Hi Mark, all,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just returned from vacation and try to follow the discussion. What
> > > about Device APIs I think they should be also disabled in the
> presenting
> > page.
> > > Otherwise the behavior of the application will be not the same between
> > > 1UA and 2UAs. For example if DeviceOrientation is used in the
> > > presenting page in the 1UA case it works  fine but not for 2 UAs.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Louay
> > >
> > > From: mark a. foltz [mailto:mfoltz@google.com]
> > > Sent: Mittwoch, 20. August 2014 19:27
> > > To: John Mellor
> > > Cc: Anton Vayvod; Francois Daoust; public-webscreens@w3.org; Jonas
> > > Sicking; Marco Chen; Wesley Johnston; Evelyn Hung
> > > Subject: Re: User agent context for rendering the presentation (was:
> Re:
> > > Google/Mozilla Presentation API update)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, that wording is better.  To be clear the presentation context
> > > should have access to all storage features, but the storage itself
> > > should behave as John describes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 6:15 AM, John Mellor <johnme@google.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Drive-by: perhaps it would be better to say that presentation content
> > > has access to all these features as usual, but they always start off
> > > empty (and are emptied at the end of the session), as if the
> > > presentation content were launched in its own incognito window.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 20 August 2014 13:47, Anton Vayvod <avayvod@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Francois!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The intent here wasn't to disable the feature for the presented page
> > > but to force the developers to only use the provided messaging channel
> > > between the presented and presenting pages. If the presented page
> > > relies on the presenting one to store something in the cache or
> > > IndexedDB for it, it can be implemented to work in the 1-UA case but
> > > not in the 2-UA case. The presented page should have access to these
> > > HTML features if the user agent running the presentation supports it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the wording for the above list should be clarified that
> > > there's "no access to cookies, local storage or IndexedDB instances in
> > > the browser context of the page that initiated the presentation".
> > >
> > > The same way as the same page loaded in a normal Chrome window and in
> > > an Incognito window will have no way of communicating with its
> > > instances through the use of cookies or storage APIs.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hope it helps,
> > >
> > > Anton.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Mark, Jonas, Anton, et al.,
> > >>
> > >> I have a question on the need to restrict the access to certain
> > >> features for presentation content.
> > >>
> > >> On 2014-08-14 02:05, mark a. foltz wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >>>
> > >>> 4. User agent context for rendering the presentation.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> If we intend the same presentation content to be rendered either in
> > >>> the same user agent or a remote user agent, we need to carefully
> > >>> define the rendering context so that the application doesn't get
> > >>> different behavior according to whether it is rendered remotely or
> > >>> locally.  In particular the presentation rendering context must have:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> - No access to cookies, local storage or IndexedDB instances
> > >>>
> > >>> - No access to HTTP cache
> > >>>
> > >>> - No access to pre-existing SharedWorkers
> > >>>
> > >>> - Extensions are debatable - some may be required for e.g. VPN or
> > >>> firewalls to work correctly
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I understand the need to have the presentation rendering context
> > >> behave similarly whether it runs locally or remotely, but I don't see
> > >> the implications in terms of restricting access to the features
> mentioned
> > above.
> > >> For instance, I don't understand why having access to the local (or
> > >> remote) IndexedDB could pose a problem. A Web app that uses
> > IndexedDB
> > >> cannot assume that the database exists, has the right version, or is
> > >> not being used by another tab that shares the same origin at the same
> > >> time. How is running a presentation context locally or remotely any
> > different?
> > >>
> > >> Could you clarify why it matters? What issues are you trying to
> prevent?
> > >>
> > >> For example, in the AwesomeGame example that Jonas presented
> > >> elsewhere in the thread, it would make sense to me to have the "full
> > >> game" run on the TV set. If the game makes use of IndexedDB when it's
> > >> available, then not being able to use it on the TV set could
> > >> noticeably affect performances or available features.
> > >>
> > >> From a developer perspective, it would also mean that presentation
> > >> apps would not have the same powers as regular Web apps and would
> > >> need to be specifically tailored as presentation apps, which strikes
> > >> me as odd. I would rather expect to be able to take any Web app, even
> > >> one that does not degrade gracefully when e.g. IndexedDB is not
> > >> available, complete it to run within a presentation session, and be
> > >> confident that it will work in any environment that supports the
> > >> features that the app is using. Granted, it's always good practice to
> > >> degrade gracefully (or rather to enhance progressively) but it's not
> > >> a reason to make that practice a requirement, especially for features
> > >> that developers rightfully start to take for granted in most browser
> > environments.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Francois.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>