On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Peter Kasting <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Ben Laurie <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That seems overly simplistic to me - for example, just because I >> sometimes want to let a chat app have access to my camera, doesn't >> mean I want it always to have access. Given the number of users I've >> seen fix this problem with duct tape, I think I can conclude that >> users would use controls if they had controls they understood and >> trusted. >> > > I don't agree. I believe granularity is not only useless but harmful for > the majority of users. See user studies of desktop app install flows or > options dialogs that universally conclude that giving people more choices > helps a small number of people and loses a large number. This is the > philosophy we designed Chrome around, so we're strong backers of it. > I agree on principle. I can imagine a couple ways the web app might state the capabilities it needs up front. The problem is that, with newer "versions" of the application, the needs might change. But how do we keep them from changing so often that the user just gets used to clicking 'yes' every time? I can't think of any good solution for this. Anyway, I think we've gotten a bit abstract here. It's good to talk about this in general, but in the mean time I'm not sure what to do for LocalStorage. Is the fixed quota per origin a good way to start? If so, is the plan to leave it that way until someone tries to tackle this stuff in a more unified way? J --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
