Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Robert Bindar <robertbin...@gmail.com> > wrote:>> My thought is to firstly introduce a small package of behaviors that >> would include "lights", "vibration" and "disrupting" >> (and maybe "noclear" too). >> The default value for all these 3 behaviors is false.> I don't think we'll >> want to default "lights" and "vibration" to false. > And I still have concerns that exposing "vibration" as a boolean could > mean that a notification goes completely silent, even though neither > the user or the application intended for that. > > Also, how is "disrupting" intended to work? As I understand it, the > current spec already defines that if you create a notification using a > tag of an already-existing notification, that it just updates that > notification without otherwise notifying the user. > > So how are you envisioning that disrupting would alter that behavior? > > / Jonas
I agree with you on "lights", we rather have fewer apps that would create so many noifications that would drain the battery. About "vibration" and "sound", I know they will be kind of useless at some point, but as long as we do not have a way to let the user specify notifications settings we could let the apps to suggest to the UA which behavior their notifications should have, without ending up annoying the user or waste resources. I have read the spec again and I could not see any information regarding the actions a replacing notification should trigger. Firefox OS for instance triggers these actions every time. Robert
