[whatwg] Proposal for a web application descriptor

Hi Simon,

Just to be certain, I'd like to ask if You are targeting desktop browser
in mobile devices, such as iPad and iPhones, as well, or is Your proposal
focused on PC/laptop devices?

Kind Regards
G?ran



On 2011-05-01 16.49, "Simon Heckmann" <simon at simonheckmann.de> wrote:

>Hello everyone, 
>
>After reading all your comments I partly re-tought some of my ideas.
>First of all it might not be the best idea to create a full application
>descriptor if it would only be used to specify permissions. Additionally,
>I can see why people do not want to be asked for all permissions at once.
>However, I on the other hand do not want to be asked for all permissions
>separately. After reading some of the links posted in this discussion I
>modified my proposal a little. You can find the new version here:
>
>	http://www.simonheckmann.de/proposal/draft2
>
>While the first part has not changed much, the second part is all-new and
>includes two completely re-modeled mock-ups.
>
>Again, comments are welcome.
>
>Kind regards,
>Simon Heckmann
>
>
>Am 30.04.2011 um 17:23 schrieb Robert O'Callahan:
>
>> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn at zewt.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Robert O'Callahan
>>><robert at ocallahan.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The application could have a settings page with a checkbox "Enable
>>> desktop
>>> notifications". When you click on that box, the browser shows its
>>>(passive,
>>> asynchronous) UI for enabling desktop notifications for that
>>>application.
>>> 
>>> This still implies having an API to ask for permission for a feature
>>>before
>>> using it.  (Web Notifications has a draft for this:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish/FeaturePermission
>>>s.html
>>> .)
>>> 
>>> Also, many developers won't want a UI like that, since when you
>>>disable a
>>> feature and expect users to enable it in settings, a lot of them won't.
>>> Many people never look at settings pages at all.  Pages are more
>>>likely to
>>> request permissions as soon as they can.
>>> 
>> 
>> Notifications are a particularly hard case for the principle of
>>requesting
>> permissions in response to user action, because the whole point of
>> notifications is that they happen when the user isn't giving the
>>application
>> attention :-).
>> 
>> Another possible approach would be to have the default be for
>>notifications
>> to show up in browser UI associated with the page --- e.g., highlight
>>the
>> tab title and show the notification(s) at the top of the page if you
>>switch
>> to the tab --- and in that notification-showing UI, offer a "show on
>> desktop" button which lets the notifications for that application
>>migrate to
>> the desktop --- effectively a permission grant.
>> 
>> Of course, asking each of these while using the application would also
>>be
>>> painfully annoying, and it's not obvious how to make permissions
>>>meaningful
>>> to the user (eg. when you use its feature) while also scaling to lots
>>>of
>>> permissions.
>>> 
>> 
>> I think we have to consider specific cases. For Skype, it depends on
>>whether
>> all those permissions are really needed, and why... It might not be that
>> hard to figure out how to make on-demand permission grants
>>intelligible. We
>> owe it to users to try.
>> 
>> Rob
>> -- 
>> "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians,
>>for
>> they received the message with great eagerness and examined the
>>Scriptures
>> every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
>

Received on Sunday, 1 May 2011 09:31:22 UTC