- From: Nils Dagsson Moskopp <nils@dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 02:53:37 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>
Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> writes: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>> Though based on Andrew's latest comments, I don't know that anyone >>> strongly feels that we need to keep the event? >> >> If you create a non-persistent notification, would you not want to >> know when the user agent closed it (only relevant if the user agent >> closes them before the document closes)? >> >> If that scenario is not important, we could remove this event too I think. > > I don't know of a use-case for that. And given that I think we should > define that non-persistent notifications go away after a timeout, I > think this is the common scenario. > > The reason I think we should use timeouts is that this matches all > OS-native non-persistent notifications that I know of, and also seems > like a better UX. I think simple timeouts on anything do not represent good UI. It can be very easy to make non-accessible interfaces using them if a timeout is too short. If you err on the side of caution regarding attention and reading speed that could mean that a timeout becomes largely useless because most users will then dismiss a notification before timeout. Having both an attention deficit and being a fast reader, I am often frustrated with timeout and notification related software issues in multiple ways. For example, I have both experienced not noticing notifications because I was not paying enough attention and being frustrated with notifications opening and closing automatically. Ultimately I see a short timeouts on a notification as an admission that the notification in question is meant to interrupt or at least distract From the current task the user has – if the user does not immediately pay attention, the notification will be gone. this means timeouts do serve as a weak proxy for importance, which people love to lie about. I would probably not use non-persistent notifications myself and hereby urge people to only produce notifications that the user has to clear or none at all. If a notification is not important, just do not use one. -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann <http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 00:54:23 UTC