- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:34:08 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>
- Cc: "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Matt May wrote: > On Dec 15, 2009, at 3:47 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > Obviously I have considered simple things like making sure it can be > > keyboard accessible and ensuring it is media-independant, but if there are > > specific aspects of the design that you think should be improved, I would > > be very grateful if you could let me know. > > I don't see anything about prompting the user to allow access to the > device. The UI would be up to the UA, but the expected behaviour is described here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Dec/0194.html (See also the rest of that thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Dec/thread.html#msg149 ...) > Considering the consequences of allowing a document unfettered access to > a user's own devices (particularly storage and capture devices), I have > to assume that some form of user access control will also be specified. > In such a scenario, as has been discussed in similar geolocation > discussions, those controls MUST be directly accessible. Additionally, > notification of those devices being accessed (e.g., a webcam being > turned on) MUST be relayed, and the device's current status SHOULD be > available at all times (if that info is available to other users, then > this would be a MUST as well). Otherwise, someone who can't see the > screen would never know whether a given device is in use. Thanks, I'll make sure to include this in the proposal if it goes any further. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2009 19:38:06 UTC