- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:23:24 +0000 (UTC)
- To: David Barrett-Kahn <dbk@google.com>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, David Barrett-Kahn wrote: > > My proposal is to have a class of information which can be made > available to an app only after the display of a generic 'this > application has crashed' dialog, which could be drilled into to show > what is being disclosed, and which of course can be denied. > > Good examples of the information in question are the system's precise > hardware and network configuration, what Chrome extensions it has > installed, and perhaps a screenshot of the failed application. There's basically no way we could ever do this without a lot of user opt-in, because of the privacy concerns (a hostile site could embed a user's facebook page, trigger a crash to get a screenshot, and then scrape the screenshot and compare it to the hardware information to work out what device they were using, who they were, etc). Just having a dialog as you propose here: > https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1pw2Bzvy6OEn8YY3fAcZiReJPmgB79swkx-NJAdcemPk ...would probably not be enough; users can easily be tricked into clicking that kind of dialog (e.g. by using misleading domain names, or by having them play a game that involves hitting "enter" a lot). Clearly though this kind of thing would be hugely helpful for debugging. My recommendation would be to approach browser vendors directly with the proposal and experiment with different ideas to find one that balances user concerns with practical results, somewhat as discussed here: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 07:24:01 UTC