On 2015-03-21 22:47, Florian Bösch wrote:
Time to revise this topic. Two data points:

1) Particularly with pointerlock (but also with other permission prompts
> that sneak up on the user) I often get the complaint from users along the
> lines of "I tried your stuff, but it didn't work." or "I tried your stuff,
> but it asked me to do X, I don't think it works".

2) MRI scans show that user attention dramatically drops when presented with
> a security prompt: 

Permission/Security prompts are bad UX. Particularly the kind you need to prompt
> the user with along the way. And within that, even worse are the ones that 
pop up again and again (like the fullscreen popup).

I agree with this. When skimming 
I particularly noted the following lines:

  "3.2.1 The Bluetooth API must only expose those parts of the general Bluetooth
   protocol that present an acceptable risk of exploit"

This may lead to:
- Crippled functionality
- User's being confronted with questions they don't understand the consequences 
  like http://www.sconnect.com/FAQ/#permissionrequest

Although efforts making the Open Web more competitive with the Native/Platform 
level are
motivated, I'm personally unconvinced that DUPLICATION is the right approach 
for system-
level interfaces.

COMBINING these layers seems like a simpler way ahead.  FWIW, I have sort of 
such a scheme: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg05005.html

What's the difference you may [rightfully] wonder?  Well, the short version is 
that it enables
any numbers of specific (single-purpose) interfaces that does exactly what you 
want and at
worst needing a privacy prompt.  These interfaces can also be defined (and 
by different communities which allows for quicker turnaround which is quite 
important if
you are set to compete with the "App" world.


On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyass...@google.com 
<mailto:jyass...@google.com>> wrote:

    On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Mounir Lamouri <mou...@lamouri.fr 
<mailto:mou...@lamouri.fr>> wrote:
    > On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, at 04:41, Jonas Sicking wrote:
    >> I'm generally supportive of this direction.
    >> I'm not sure that that the PermissionStatus thing is needed. For
    >> example in order to support bluetooth is might be better to make the
    >> call look like:
    >> permissions.has("bluetooth", "fitbit").then(...);
    > That's more Permission than PermissionStatus, right?
    > What you proposed here would probably be something like that in WebIDL:
    > Promise<> has(PermissionName name, any options);
    > But really, we could make that option bag be a dictionary because it
    > gives good context about what you are passing like what does "fitbit"
    > means here? Is that a black listed device or a white listed one? The one
    > you want to target?
    > I agree that it might be unusual to have a required "name" than might
    > often be used alone but it makes the API way more javascript-y and self
    > explanatory. IMO, this call is nicer to read than the one you wrote
    > above:
    >   permissions.has({ name: 'bluetooth', devices: 'fitbit' });
    > because I understand what the call is trying to do. In addition, as you
    > pointed, it gives a lot of flexibility.

    Belatedly, I'd like to suggest a slightly different model. Instead of
    trying to stuff arbitrary queries into the permissions.has() call,
    maybe expose the current permissions as data, and let the application
    inspect them using custom code. This is likely to work better for
    Bluetooth, since we're planning to have pages request devices by the
    Services they expose, not their deviceIds, and a page may want to
    check for either an available device exposing some services, or that a
    device they've already opened hasn't been revoked.

    Getting permission revocation to update a UI correctly is also an
    interesting problem. You could expose an event on permission change,
    but given that templating frameworks are moving toward
    Object.observe() to update themselves in response to model object
    changes, that would require developers to write extra code to
    propagate the permission changes into their models.

    So what if navigator.permissions just _was_ a suitable model object?
    Make it, say, a Map from permission-name to an object defined by the
    permission's standard, and extend Map to expose enough synthetic
    change records that Object.observe(a_map) is useful.


Reply via email to