15:01:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dap
15:01:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/09-dap-irc
15:01:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:01:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dap
15:01:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DAP
15:01:07 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:01:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Device and Sensors Working Group Teleconference
15:01:08 <trackbot> Date: 09 March 2017
15:01:21 <dom> Chair: Dom
15:01:22 <dom> Regrets: Frederick
15:01:44 <dom> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2017Mar/0007.html
15:02:24 <Andrey_Logvinov> Present+ Andrey_Logvinov
15:02:31 <dom> Present+
15:02:33 <dom> Present+ Anssi
15:02:39 <dom> Present+ Kenneth
15:03:35 <tobie> Present+ Tobie_Langel
15:03:46 <shalamov> Present+ Mikhail_Pozdnyakov
15:04:19 <shalamov> Present+ Alexander_Shalamov
15:04:29 <kenneth_> kenneth_ has joined #dap
15:04:57 <dom> ScribeNick: kenneth_
15:05:44 <kenneth_> Agenda of today is wakelock and generic sensors api, and a bit of media capture
15:07:03 <dom> https://github.com/dontcallmedom/github-notify-ml/
15:07:30 <dom> RESOLUTION: Minutes from 23 February 2017 are approved https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2017Feb/att-0010/minutes-2017-02-23.html
15:07:39 <dom> Topic: Wake Lock API
15:08:08 <kenneth_> incorporated all feedback to the spec
15:08:16 <kenneth_> planning impl but hasnt started it yet
15:08:21 <kenneth_> s/feedback/TAG feedback/
15:08:41 <tobie> s/impl/implementation/
15:09:18 <kenneth_> Moving onto sensor discussions
15:09:20 <dom> Topic: Sensors
15:09:47 <kenneth_> Concerns around permission API
15:09:53 <dom> https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/174
15:10:11 <dom> https://github.com/w3c/accelerometer/issues/4
15:10:18 <kenneth_> 1. Chrome considers that they want oto ship the specced stuff without permissions (Owen)
15:10:29 <kenneth_> Security feedback are concerned about this
15:10:46 <kenneth_> If other vendors ship behind permissions this will not be interoperable
15:10:55 <dom> -> https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/174#issuecomment-285194689 Tobie's view on auto-granted permissions
15:10:55 <kenneth_> we can keep permissions in place and Chrome can auto grant
15:11:07 <kenneth_> Then this becomes an implmentation point, not a spec one
15:11:41 <kenneth_> One of hte mitigation strategies in place to hopefully avoid the security concerns with motion sensors is to limit polling frequency
15:12:27 <kenneth_> security concerns are around sniffing people entering passwords etc on a table together with another phone which is using sensors
15:12:40 <kenneth_> with machine learning these becomes bigger concerns
15:12:55 <kenneth_> idea was suggested to limit to 60hz
15:13:05 <kenneth_> which breaks some use-cases we have
15:13:14 <kenneth_> and it is not a real migitation strategy anyway
15:13:30 <kenneth_> doesnt solve issues but means that VR etc cannot function
15:13:44 <dom> -> https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/98#issuecomment-284073444 Tobie's view on high frequency polling
15:15:42 <anssik_> q+
15:15:59 <kenneth_> anssik_: might want ot autogrand for low frequencies, could be an option
15:16:11 <shalamov> q+
15:16:13 <kenneth_> s/autogrand/auto grant/
15:16:24 <dom> ack anssik_
15:16:27 <dom> ack shalamov
15:16:48 <kenneth_> shalamov: (misha) hard to provide a good prompt and get the user to understand and make the right decision
15:16:51 <kenneth_> tobie: I agree
15:17:15 <kenneth_> shalamov: we are tying to better find out how this affects when frequences are > 60hz
15:17:33 <kenneth_> tobie: prompting the user is very concerting because it is very hard to explain what the problem is
15:17:46 <kenneth_> tobie: the permission spec was designed with all of this in mind
15:17:54 <kenneth_> like you dont necessarily need to prompt a user
15:17:59 <anssik_> s/shalamov/mikhail/
15:18:03 <kenneth_> I agree it is a very hard problem
15:18:17 <anssik_> q?
15:18:48 <kenneth_> mikhail: I believe the same frequency is exposed via DeviceMotion spec
15:19:23 <kenneth_> tobie: good point, but we are changing api and are probably providing deeper access, so the end goal is to get rid of (deprecate) device orientation/motion
15:19:44 <kenneth_> dom: we shouldn't stop fixing things because it is broken to begin with
15:20:22 <kenneth_> dom: the idea of using permission spec is that we decouple ourselves from how the prompting should be done
15:20:27 <kenneth_> we dont want to get into this discussion
15:21:39 <kenneth_> dom: what is the plans for the next steps
15:21:57 <kenneth_> tobie: anssi wants CR, but I want research done for motion sensors to be documented before
15:22:06 <kenneth_> this is drifting into motion sensor discussions
15:22:22 <kenneth_> motion sensors have different requerements and characteristics
15:22:34 <kenneth_> It makes sense to have them as a subclass of generic sensors
15:22:45 <kenneth_> should there be a motion sensor / high frequency sensor subclass
15:22:52 <kenneth_> how to deal with ambient light etc, evented sensor?
15:23:06 <kenneth_> lots of discussions needing more research
15:23:11 <kenneth_> maybe add more in generic sensors
15:23:26 <kenneth_> or move these new super class into a dedicated spec
15:23:47 <kenneth_> gutfeeling for now is that we sould think of these as high frequencies instead of motion sensors... but might be a dumb idea :)
15:24:04 <kenneth_> when we have more info we will have more clarify to what to do next
15:24:19 <kenneth_> a massive open issues inlines in the spec itself
15:24:30 <kenneth_> dom: short story, not there yet
15:24:52 <dom> -> https://github.com/w3c/sensors/milestone/2 Level 1 issues on Generic Sensors
15:25:06 <kenneth_> tobie need to spec integration with RAF etc
15:25:29 <anssik> q+
15:25:30 <kenneth_> tobie: that is my focus over next weeks
15:25:53 <kenneth_> anssik: tobie can you confirm that the milestone labels still make sense
15:26:03 <kenneth_> tobie: yes, hopefully pretty much yes :)
15:26:22 <kenneth_> tobie: I think high frequncy might bring more into level 1
15:26:33 <kenneth_> otehr option is to do CR now and then push it into level 2
15:26:44 <kenneth_> but we dont have a second implementation
15:27:29 <kenneth_> tobie: I need to check if I have to move stuff, milestones etc... (some stuff to do)
15:28:09 <dom> ACTION: Tobie to update milestones on Generic Sensor issues
15:28:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-785 - Update milestones on generic sensor issues [on Tobie Langel - due 2017-03-16].
15:28:58 <dom> [we could use a github project dashboard https://help.github.com/articles/about-projects/ ]
15:29:02 <kenneth_> tobie: rant about github issues... hard to see what is a 6 month work or a 2 hour work item
15:29:34 <anssik> see e.g. https://github.com/w3c/strategy/projects/2
15:29:47 <dom> Topic: Motion Sensors
15:30:08 <kenneth_> new repo for orientation spec
15:30:12 <kenneth_> threads for unique motions spec
15:30:22 <kenneth_> Kenneths proposal for an explainer how they work and relate
15:30:32 <kenneth_> what devs and users need to understand in that space
15:30:44 <anssik> https://sensor-compass.appspot.com/explainer.html
15:30:50 <kenneth_> dom: lets discuss explainer and discuss mechanics of that
15:30:55 <kenneth_> then touch other topics
15:31:10 <kenneth_> we could adopt this as part of work item
15:31:14 <kenneth_> as a simple starting point
15:31:19 <kenneth_> create a repository to host it
15:31:29 <kenneth_> anyone has thing to share about this
15:32:01 <dom> kenneth: the whole motion sensors area is not well documented anywhere; there aren't good books or articles on this
15:32:20 <dom> ... I personally had a lot of troubles when having to build demos, around filters, combinations, etc
15:32:36 <dom> ... base sensors / fusion sensions / Make-Your-Own-Sensor
15:33:00 <dom> ... we should try to explain this in a way that developers outreach can be done effectively
15:33:12 <anssik> q+
15:33:25 <dom> ... showing lots of good examples will help also identify the good, the bad and the ugly in our API
15:33:45 <dom> ... e.g. I identified the potential need of getting time differences rather than timestamps
15:33:59 <dom> anssi: sounds like a great document to have; didn't anticipate it would materialize so fast!
15:34:05 <dom> ... +1 on kenneth
15:34:30 <dom> ... we've been catering mainly for implementors, the specs don't provide much background around the technical implementation bits
15:34:37 <dom> ... this is a great complement to that
15:34:47 <dom> ... and it definitely fits in our charter
15:34:57 <dom> ... we should move it to the w3c github account
15:35:07 <kenneth_> q+
15:35:10 <dom> ... I would support adopting this as a work item
15:35:12 <dom> ack anssi
15:35:38 <dom> kenneth_: this actually was one of the problems with the old device orientation spec, leading to non-interoperable implementations
15:36:00 <dom> ... exposing low level sensors helps when fusion sensors don't match your use case
15:36:24 <dom> q?
15:36:30 <dom> ack kenneth_
15:37:55 <dom> https://github.com/w3c/motion-sensors/ created
15:39:32 <tobie> q+
15:40:14 <dom> dom: at some point we'll need to decide how to publish that doc: just an editors draft, a WG note, introductory to a Rec track doc. no need to decide today, but any early input on this?
15:40:36 <dom> tobie: I shared my perspective on the list that we should merge all motion specs in one doc and have this as an intro
15:40:47 <kenneth_> q?
15:41:03 <dom> ... an integrated document makes it easier to find for developers
15:41:14 <anssik> q+
15:41:21 <dom> kenneth: I fear that a separate note is less easy to discover for devs
15:41:21 <dom> ack tobie
15:41:22 <dom> ack anssik
15:41:36 <dom> anssik: at the minimum the document should be tightly cross-linked from specs
15:41:41 <anssik> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2017Mar/0001.html
15:42:14 <dom> ... I think you often to compromise between catering for devs vs catering for implementors
15:42:30 <tobie> q+
15:42:51 <dom> ACTION: Kenneth to import motion sensors explainer in https://github.com/w3c/motion-sensors/
15:42:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-786 - Import motion sensors explainer in https://github.com/w3c/motion-sensors/ [on Kenneth Christiansen - due 2017-03-16].
15:43:29 <dom> anssik: my preference is to keep the current structure, but will follow the group's consensus; no rush in changing in any case
15:43:53 <dom> tobie: what demands attention right now is research on the sensors, use cases and requirements
15:44:04 <dom> ... for motion / high frequency sensors
15:44:24 <dom> ... once we have more stuff around this, it will make it easier
15:44:37 <kenneth_> https://w3c.github.io/motion-sensors/explainer.html
15:44:52 <dom> ... that said, "explainers + normative stuff not going well together" - I don't necessarily agree with that as a general rule of thumb
15:45:21 <dom> ... and in this case, where there is a lot of domain specific knowledge, it's important that implementors understand the surrounding requirements to implement the right thing
15:45:28 <dom> ... that might point to things that aren't clear enough in normative content
15:45:49 <dom> ... but I still think you can't really decide what you're going to explose in a sensor fusion if you don't understand the associated trade-offs
15:47:43 <shalamov> q+
15:48:10 <dom> shalamov: we've introduced this new motion sensor draft, built on top of 3 low level motion sensors
15:48:17 <anssik> https://w3c.github.io/orientation-sensor/
15:48:23 <dom> ... it's exposing quaternions & WebGL compatible rotation matrices
15:48:35 <kenneth_> https://w3c.github.io/motion-sensors/ works now btw
15:48:36 <dom> ... will use this as an early spec for implementation in Chromium
15:49:09 <dom> Tobie: I've made a number of comments on this in pull requests and issues
15:49:32 <dom> ... it's great to see more experimentation work, but not quite sure it's the right direction quite yet
15:50:23 <dom> Topic: HTML media capture
15:50:46 <dom> Anssi: spec sitting in CR, renewed interest in implementors (questions from Google & Apple)
15:50:57 <dom> ... crafted an update to the spec to move it to an enum
15:51:11 <anssik> https://w3c.github.io/html-media-capture/
15:51:17 <dom> ... reviewed by implementors
15:51:23 <tobie> q+
15:51:46 <shalamov> q-
15:51:51 <anssik> https://crbug.com/698853
15:52:46 <dom> tobie: ♥ moving this forward
15:53:26 <dom> Topic: Battery
15:53:36 <anssik> https://github.com/w3c/battery/issues/9
15:54:06 <dom> Anssi: Chrome still shipping it
15:54:13 <dom> close ACTION-786
15:54:13 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-786.
15:54:53 <dom> ... issue 9 is an interesting proposal to reduce privacy surface with a new feature detecting "low battery mode" as set by the user
17:17:46 <shalamov> shalamov has joined #dap
18:02:44 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dap
18:15:16 <shalamov> shalamov has joined #dap
19:07:41 <zkis> zkis has joined #dap
19:53:13 <shalamov> shalamov has joined #dap
20:47:38 <shalamov> shalamov has joined #dap
21:36:01 <shalamov> shalamov has joined #dap
21:55:28 <shalamov> shalamov has joined #dap
22:36:14 <zkis> zkis has joined #dap