7 ms·

Or just put it behind a permission prompt and quit ruining all the cool features of the web for the rest of us

daguava 5y ago
I cannot think of a single time I want my phone to start vibrating in a web context outside of a very deep game integration.
- legerdemain 5y ago
  "Very deep"... is that subtle innuendo?
  - daguava 5y ago
    No. It isn't. And this isn't the place for that. Edit: I was thinking of simulation gaming, such as racing (forced feedback, hitting the wall), Fishing (fish on the line, rumble as forced feedback, etc)
    - legerdemain 5y ago
      This is 100% the place for that. On the XBox Live Indie Games marketplace, the top-selling game was always a "scalp massager" game (or "game") of some sort.
      - mechanical_bear 5y ago
        I think previous poster is saying this is not really the place for titillating innuendo, or low effort jokes about such, which I’d tend to agree.
        legerdemain 5y ago
        And I'm saying that teledildonics is a fascinating and rewarding area of consumer tech that 100% deserves a visible place on HN without resorting to hints and innuendo.
- wtallis 5y ago
  This and many other features need to be bundled up behind a single permission prompt that gives the domain permission to be an app instead of a web site—and that permission should probably come with stricter restrictions on loading third-party resources.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    It would be tough to make such a thing work because then every site would annoy you into being an app.
    - wtallis 5y ago
      Hence why the invasive permissions need to be paired with restrictions that impose a tradeoff and incentivize sites with a more traditional web page usage model to not classify themselves as app-style sites.
    - bartaxyz 5y ago
      In Chrome, there's already a toolbar displaying that you can install the website as PWA. In addition, a lot of websites already try to stop you from using the web in favour of using the app (e. g. Reddit). So, I don't see this as a new annoyance.
- hanniabu 5y ago
  I can't think of a single time I wanted to allow push notifications or allow for my camera or mic to be accessed, but I can at least acknowledge that others may want this.
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
This is done with a lot of features already: In practice, users click to authorize it, and then do not understand why their computers do scary things. Just putting stuff behind yet another permission prompt users do not understand is not an acceptable position. I really feel a lot of people in Silicon Valley have not ever just sat back and watched a non-technical user use a computer: The state of the industry is woefully disconnected from actual user experience. I beseech anyone who thinks a permission prompt solves a problem, rather than creating one, to go to a senior living community, and just watch people use computers.
- Shared404 5y ago
  > go to a senior living community, and just watch people use computers. Experiences like this make me wish there were chromebook like machines that didn't spy on users, because that's really the only ethical solution. Non-technical users can have the locked down machines, with a way to opt in to a higher degree of access possibly, and power users can get the full machines. I know this sounds elitist of me, but this is the only way I honestly see everyone getting what they want.
- saurik 5y ago
  The problem is that it isn't out place to decide that people simply aren't allowed to do something because they are too stupid or senile to be even given the option to do something they might actively want... I appreciate the intent, but the result still feels morally reprehensible (and I will note that, if it had been applied to computers from the beginning, most of the cool stuff we use wouldn't exist).
  - paxcoder 5y ago
    Old people are not too stupid/senile, they are simply inexperienced. An ideal UI/UX would be understandable even to them. Whether that is possible, I'm not sure. But you know know who else is inexperienced? Kids. And I would venture to guess there will be plenty of those once you are old. By then I would expect you to find different things "morally reprehensible"...
  - 5y ago
Spivak 5y ago
I’m totally fine with having features like this living in website settings but it should be non-promptable.
dmitriid 5y ago
> Or just put it behind a permission prompt There are now dozens of APIs requiring a permission prompt. Enough.

I cannot think of a single time I want my phone to start vibrating in a web context outside of a very deep game integration.

legerdemain 5y ago
"Very deep"... is that subtle innuendo?
- daguava 5y ago
  No. It isn't. And this isn't the place for that. Edit: I was thinking of simulation gaming, such as racing (forced feedback, hitting the wall), Fishing (fish on the line, rumble as forced feedback, etc)
  - legerdemain 5y ago
    This is 100% the place for that. On the XBox Live Indie Games marketplace, the top-selling game was always a "scalp massager" game (or "game") of some sort.
    - mechanical_bear 5y ago
      I think previous poster is saying this is not really the place for titillating innuendo, or low effort jokes about such, which I’d tend to agree.
      - legerdemain 5y ago
        And I'm saying that teledildonics is a fascinating and rewarding area of consumer tech that 100% deserves a visible place on HN without resorting to hints and innuendo.
wtallis 5y ago
This and many other features need to be bundled up behind a single permission prompt that gives the domain permission to be an app instead of a web site—and that permission should probably come with stricter restrictions on loading third-party resources.
- Spivak 5y ago
  It would be tough to make such a thing work because then every site would annoy you into being an app.
  - wtallis 5y ago
    Hence why the invasive permissions need to be paired with restrictions that impose a tradeoff and incentivize sites with a more traditional web page usage model to not classify themselves as app-style sites.
  - bartaxyz 5y ago
    In Chrome, there's already a toolbar displaying that you can install the website as PWA. In addition, a lot of websites already try to stop you from using the web in favour of using the app (e. g. Reddit). So, I don't see this as a new annoyance.
hanniabu 5y ago
I can't think of a single time I wanted to allow push notifications or allow for my camera or mic to be accessed, but I can at least acknowledge that others may want this.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

This is done with a lot of features already: In practice, users click to authorize it, and then do not understand why their computers do scary things. Just putting stuff behind yet another permission prompt users do not understand is not an acceptable position. I really feel a lot of people in Silicon Valley have not ever just sat back and watched a non-technical user use a computer: The state of the industry is woefully disconnected from actual user experience. I beseech anyone who thinks a permission prompt solves a problem, rather than creating one, to go to a senior living community, and just watch people use computers.

Shared404 5y ago
> go to a senior living community, and just watch people use computers. Experiences like this make me wish there were chromebook like machines that didn't spy on users, because that's really the only ethical solution. Non-technical users can have the locked down machines, with a way to opt in to a higher degree of access possibly, and power users can get the full machines. I know this sounds elitist of me, but this is the only way I honestly see everyone getting what they want.
saurik 5y ago
The problem is that it isn't out place to decide that people simply aren't allowed to do something because they are too stupid or senile to be even given the option to do something they might actively want... I appreciate the intent, but the result still feels morally reprehensible (and I will note that, if it had been applied to computers from the beginning, most of the cool stuff we use wouldn't exist).
- paxcoder 5y ago
  Old people are not too stupid/senile, they are simply inexperienced. An ideal UI/UX would be understandable even to them. Whether that is possible, I'm not sure. But you know know who else is inexperienced? Kids. And I would venture to guess there will be plenty of those once you are old. By then I would expect you to find different things "morally reprehensible"...
- 5y ago

Spivak 5y ago

I’m totally fine with having features like this living in website settings but it should be non-promptable.

dmitriid 5y ago

> Or just put it behind a permission prompt There are now dozens of APIs requiring a permission prompt. Enough.