<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Michael Davidson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mpd@google.com">mpd@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">I agree 100%. I'm only trying to argue that from a user perspective,</div></div>
access that we currently have acceptable UI for, e.g. camera hardware,<br>
is about as scary as agreeing to let a web app run in the background.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The whole point is precisely that most users will have _utterly no idea_ what letting an app run in the background means or if it's scary, which is dangerous when combined with the fact that to an actual malware author it's far more valuable than getting access to the camera.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I find it highly unlikely this distinction can be explained, or that users should even have to care. I'm not proposing a UI design -- I'm just suggesting that copying existing permissions UIs such as the one Flash uses for camera access may be a poor choice.</div>
<div><br></div><div>(My instinct is that, like with Fx extensions or Android apps, users should probably just make an all-or-nothing decision one time, up front, and we should do our best to give them relevant info like ratings.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>PK</div></div>