On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Jake Archibald jaffathec...@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion is about how often push may be processed silently (without
showing a notification), not if a push notification may *only* show a
notification.
Ok.
I think this comes back to the old problem of that
This discussion is about how often push may be processed silently (without
showing a notification), not if a push notification may *only* show a
notification.
The latter was shown to be insufficient in the other thread.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Owen Campbell-Moore owe...@google.com
wrote:
Hi All - my name is Owen and I recently joined the Chrome team.
Taking a step back, we believe users have control such that they can permit
a site to send them notifications (or notify them of an event using other
UI) without permitting it to run arbitrarily in the background without
their
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Owen Campbell-Moore owe...@google.com wrote:
I think it might make sense to ask for permission to display
notifications/UI at the same time as you ask for permission to run in the
background.
I hope the above explains why we believe that while some sites may
On 23 October 2014 23:29, Martin Thomson martin.thom...@gmail.com wrote:
It means that important features that provide
these measures (do not disturb, more contextual event filtering) are
not available to applications by default.
System-wide do-not-disturb would still work (for example in
On 24 October 2014 09:09, John Mellor joh...@google.com wrote:
For background sync[1], such a throttling approach would be ideal, as there
is no expectation of timeliness. But push is different: users can come to
depend on timely delivery of push notifications, and sufficiently
heavy-handed
On 22 October 2014 20:55, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
However I don't think that it makes sense for apps to commit to
displaying UI when there's an incoming push. I'm not sure what problem
that would solve?
It means the user is aware of incoming pushes, which alleviates two
On 23 October 2014 04:10, John Mellor joh...@google.com wrote:
Can you elaborate? This would attach no penalty to developers who don't opt
in (at the one time cost of an additional permission prompt); and as I
explained above, developers who do opt in would indeed be incentivized to
always
Hi folks,
Based on our UX studies for Chrome, we’ve found the clearest way to do
permissions UX for the Push API will be to have one prompt[1] that grants
both full push messaging and background sync[2], and a separate prompt[3]
that grants notifications plus a restricted form of push where each
