4 ms·

I recognize that this kind of thing is useful to the developer, of course, and we've gotten a lot of neat things this way. My worry is basically that the absen

I recognize that this kind of thing is useful to the developer, of course, and we've gotten a lot of neat things this way. My worry is basically that the absent functionality is the best thing about the web as a user. Take the notification API: One of the nice things about web pages and apps is that they stop bothering me once I close them; not so if I accidentally permit notifications! Fortunately I can turn that whole feature off, but at first I found myself wondering who ever thought that would be a good idea. Yes I picked an extreme example, and I don't actually mind some of these things. I wish there were a permission pop-up before playing sound at all. Also, WebGL does concern me, since heavy GPU usage can draw a lot of power. Things like gamepad support and spatial audio (if they are behind permission pop-ups) don't really bother me, though.

johnfn 4y ago
I don't know, this seems like a good compromise to me. Some apps (calendar) would be absolutely crippled without them. For everything else, I've just never turned them on in the first place. > I wish there were a permission pop-up before playing sound at all The browser can't actually play sound unless 1) it's triggered as the result of a user action (such as a mouse click) or 2) if you've often listened to sound on that page in the past.
- amalcon 4y ago
  My answer to this is that the calendar just does not need to be a web app. Weakening a primary advantage of everything else on the web just so that my calendar can be a web app seems like a poor trade-off. Re: sound, "Triggered as the result of a user action" is not a high enough bar.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    > the calendar just does not need to be a web app And the chat app, and the email app, and the social media app (other opinions about social media notwithstanding). I think each of these things have their own legitimate use for notifications. I guess it's the point of "weakening a primary advantage". I don't see how it's weakened (or rather, I don't see how it's a problem) when the notifications are on a per site permission. Especially so when the notifications can be turned off completely per browser. > Re: sound, "Triggered as the result of a user action" is not a high enough bar. I'm with you on this. Although it took until this thread for me to realize that sound at all should be a permission.
    - account42 4y ago
      The world would be better off if social media apps did not have notifications.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Calendars are far more useful as web apps than other incarnations; you can open them anywhere and don't have to carry a specific artifact with you to do it.
    - dijit 4y ago
      a web view for caldav is just fine (and how I use outlook currently); but for notifications a proper program is definitely preferable.
      - nathants 4y ago
        the flashing/buzzing/squawking device in your pocket does this quite well.
- account42 4y ago
  > The browser can't actually play sound unless 1) it's triggered as the result of a user action (such as a mouse click) or 2) if you've often listened to sound on that page in the past. The point is that a click should not give the website permission to play audio - that should be handled much explicitly and not just the user selecting text or some other interaction. Besides, last time I checked Firefox still let AudioContext play sound without any user interaction even though the <audio> element has more restrictions. Which is another problem: the HTML + JS spec is too bloated to properly secure things.
notatoad 4y ago
this seems like a pretty silly criticism - you have a feature that is both gated behind a per-site permission prompt and that has an option to globally turn it off, and you're still grumpy that it exists? if you don't like it turn it off. arguing that things shouldn't exist just because you choose not to use them is pretty selfish.
- amalcon 4y ago
  I mean... it does exist now, and I don't advocate taking it out since people have probably come to rely on it for some reason. Defaults matter, though, and I suspect[0] that a minority want this default. [0]- With only anecdotes supporting my suspicion; I haven't done a rigorous study.
  - lupire 4y ago
    It seems silly to ask for a release to be crippled just because a page does something obnoxious inside its own space. The solution to that is a URL allowlist or blocklist.

johnfn 4y ago

I don't know, this seems like a good compromise to me. Some apps (calendar) would be absolutely crippled without them. For everything else, I've just never turned them on in the first place. > I wish there were a permission pop-up before playing sound at all The browser can't actually play sound unless 1) it's triggered as the result of a user action (such as a mouse click) or 2) if you've often listened to sound on that page in the past.

amalcon 4y ago
My answer to this is that the calendar just does not need to be a web app. Weakening a primary advantage of everything else on the web just so that my calendar can be a web app seems like a poor trade-off. Re: sound, "Triggered as the result of a user action" is not a high enough bar.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  > the calendar just does not need to be a web app And the chat app, and the email app, and the social media app (other opinions about social media notwithstanding). I think each of these things have their own legitimate use for notifications. I guess it's the point of "weakening a primary advantage". I don't see how it's weakened (or rather, I don't see how it's a problem) when the notifications are on a per site permission. Especially so when the notifications can be turned off completely per browser. > Re: sound, "Triggered as the result of a user action" is not a high enough bar. I'm with you on this. Although it took until this thread for me to realize that sound at all should be a permission.
  - account42 4y ago
    The world would be better off if social media apps did not have notifications.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Calendars are far more useful as web apps than other incarnations; you can open them anywhere and don't have to carry a specific artifact with you to do it.
  - dijit 4y ago
    a web view for caldav is just fine (and how I use outlook currently); but for notifications a proper program is definitely preferable.
    - nathants 4y ago
      the flashing/buzzing/squawking device in your pocket does this quite well.
account42 4y ago
> The browser can't actually play sound unless 1) it's triggered as the result of a user action (such as a mouse click) or 2) if you've often listened to sound on that page in the past. The point is that a click should not give the website permission to play audio - that should be handled much explicitly and not just the user selecting text or some other interaction. Besides, last time I checked Firefox still let AudioContext play sound without any user interaction even though the <audio> element has more restrictions. Which is another problem: the HTML + JS spec is too bloated to properly secure things.

notatoad 4y ago

this seems like a pretty silly criticism - you have a feature that is both gated behind a per-site permission prompt and that has an option to globally turn it off, and you're still grumpy that it exists? if you don't like it turn it off. arguing that things shouldn't exist just because you choose not to use them is pretty selfish.

amalcon 4y ago
I mean... it does exist now, and I don't advocate taking it out since people have probably come to rely on it for some reason. Defaults matter, though, and I suspect[0] that a minority want this default. [0]- With only anecdotes supporting my suspicion; I haven't done a rigorous study.
- lupire 4y ago
  It seems silly to ask for a release to be crippled just because a page does something obnoxious inside its own space. The solution to that is a URL allowlist or blocklist.