W3C

List of comments on “Proximity Events” (dated 6 December 2012)

Quick access to

There are 4 comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).

substantive comments

Comment LC-2740
Commenter: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com> (archived message)
Context: Document as a whole
assigned to Anssi Kostiainen
Resolution status:

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

>
> If your device is not doing anything, e.g. completely stationary,
> these sensors would theoretically not change and you would never be
> able to get the actual state. That might be a mostly academic problem,
> but this seems like another set of events that violate the spirit of
> DOM Events. Kinda ambivalent on whether that's good or bad, but I
> think it at least ought to be pointed out more clearly. And perhaps we
> ought to define this more explicitly by having some kind of hook in
> addEventListener?
>


I've been thinking about this since the last call yesterday as well.

Early in my development of the Johnny-Five framework, I decided that all
sensors must:

1. Generate events

- sensor.on("change", .... ); // Any change to the reading value(s)
- sensor.on("read", .... ); // Every sensor reading

2. Allow value read accessors

- sensor.value; // sensors w/ a single value
- sensor.axis.{ x, y, z } // multiple values (ie. accelerometer, as
shown here)

3. Stream (in progress)

- http://maxogden.com/node-streams.html


But of course, this design is meant to facilitate an arbitrary number of
sensors, eg. you might have an array of 4 proximity or sonar sensors on a
robot to aid in navigation. This level of scalability may not
seem practical for mobile devices, but then I'm reminded of
navigator.getUserMedia that was originally spec'ed with no thought about
multiple cameras—implementations then have to figure it out.


I understand there is platform precedence to consider, ie. DeviceMotion and
DeviceOrientation APIs and this nicely matches, but If I was asked to
start from scratch, I'd start with a Proximity (or
DeviceProximity...something similar) constructor that initialized proximity
objects that had properties: max, min and value and could dispatch events
by inheriting EventTarget. I have no expectation that the current system
would be changed like this, so consider this entirely "just for fun". :)


Rick
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2731
Commenter: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> (archived message)
Context: 5. Device proximity The HTML5 specification [HTML5] defines...
assigned to Anssi Kostiainen
Resolution status:

Hi,

I would kindly suggest you reorder the requirement for queueing with
the requirement for firing. E.g. "The user agent must queue a task to
fire a device proximity event." (and then remove the requirement for
queueing from the firing steps). This matches phraseology in other
specifications better and allows for reuse of the firing definition in
other contexts.

You defined "ondeviceproximity" and "onuserproximity" twice. This
seems to be because of the legacy-DOM-style formatting.

Do not use RFC 2119 terms in notes, such as "may".

If your device is not doing anything, e.g. completely stationary,
these sensors would theoretically not change and you would never be
able to get the actual state. That might be a mostly academic problem,
but this seems like another set of events that violate the spirit of
DOM Events. Kinda ambivalent on whether that's good or bad, but I
think it at least ought to be pointed out more clearly. And perhaps we
ought to define this more explicitly by having some kind of hook in
addEventListener?

Kind regards,
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2742
Commenter: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> (archived message)
Context: 5.2.2 Dictionary DeviceProximityEventInit Members max of t...
assigned to Anssi Kostiainen
Resolution status:

I just noticed your specification has the same issue as the Ambient
thingie. You're not defining default values for the event interface
members. (new UserProximityEvent("haha")).near is undefined. I suggest
adding that to the testsuite. (It's one of the basic things to cover
when testing event constructors.)
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

editorial comments

Comment LC-2732
Commenter: Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com> (archived message)
Context: 5.2 DeviceProximityEvent Interface [Constructor (DOMString...
assigned to Anssi Kostiainen
Resolution status:

I see the distance measurement unit "in centimeters" is mentioned only
once, in the description of "current device proximity", I would suggest
being explicit and including it in "minimum proximity distance" and
"maximum proximity distance" as well.

Rick
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Add a comment.


Developed and maintained by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org).
$Id: Overview.php,v 1.46 2013-10-04 08:11:33 dom Exp $
Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to w3t-sys.org