W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2010

[whatwg] Storage quota introspection and modification

From: Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:20:38 -0800
Message-ID: <bbeaa26f1003111320p40bb9886oc6f67f8de338d9b9@mail.gmail.com>
Am 11. M?rz 2010 12:00 schrieb Mike Shaver <mike.shaver at gmail.com>:

> 2010/3/11 Ian Fette (????????) <ifette at google.com>:
> > I think apps will have to deal with hitting quota as you describe,
> however
> > with a normal desktop app you usually have a giant disk relative to what
> the
> > user actually needs. When we're talking about shipping something with a
> 5mb
> > or 50mb default quota, that's a very different story than my grandfather
> > having a 1tb disk that he is never going to use. Even with 50mb (which is
> > about as much freebie quota as I think I am comfortable giving at the
> > moment), you will blow through that quite quickly if you want to sync
> your
> > email.
>
> How did you come up with 50MB?  As a user, I would want "the
> application that is gmail" to have the same capabilities as "the
> application that is thunderbird", I think.  Isn't that our goal?
>

AFAIK most browsers are setting a default quota for storage options that is
on the order of megabytes.


>
> > The thing that makes this worse is that you will blow through it at
> > some random point (as there is no natural "installation" point from the
> APIs
> > we have.
>
> That's the case for desktop applications too, really -- mostly I run
> out of disk not when I install uTorrent or Thunderbird, but when I'm
> trying the Nth linux distro to find one that likes my video card or
> someone mails me an HD-resolution powerpoint and I'm about to head to
> the airport.
>
> > I would personally be in
> > favor of this approach, if only we had a good way to define what it meant
> to
> > "offline the app".
>
> Sorry, I was working from that premise, which (I thought!) you stated
> in your first message:
>
> "I personally would not expect to browse to a site and then just
> happen to be able to use it offline, nor do I expect users to have
> that expectation or experience. Rather, I expect going through some
> sort of flow like clicking something that says "Yes, I want to use
> Application X offline"."
>
> Could also be an infobar on first some-kind-of-storage use, which
> users can click to say "yeah, make sure this works offline" vs "it can
> use some storage, I guess, but don't let it get in the way of my
> torrents!"  I am not a UI designer worth the term, but I *do* believe
> that the problem is solvable.
>

Yes, but I think there may be uses of things like storage for non-offline
uses (pre-fetching email attachments, saving an email that is in a draft
state etc.)  If it's relatively harmless, like 1mb usage, I don't want to
pop up an infobar, I just want to allow it. So, I don't really want to have
an infobar each time a site uses one of these features for the first time,
I'd like to allow innocuous use if possible. But at the same time, I want
apps to be able to say up front, at a time when the user is thinking about
it (because they just clicked something on the site, presumably) "here's
what I am going to need".


>
> Mike
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100311/babd900b/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 13:20:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:21 UTC