Closed marcoscaceres closed 3 months ago
(if I understood correctly) what if there is no wallet installed on a user device that can meet verifier's requests? would that still result in user interaction "you don't have a wallet that can fulfill this request?". It actually might be nice if this can lead to a screen where verifier can prompt the user to install wallet(s)?
(if I understood correctly) what if there is no wallet installed on a user device that can meet verifier's requests? would that still result in user interaction "you don't have a wallet that can fulfill this request?". It actually might be nice if this can lead to a screen where verifier can prompt the user to install wallet(s)?
That would be the app platform's responsibility / choice. Credential Mediation provides the framework to be able to provide non-modal experiences for credential requests in the browser, such as the autofill UI for passkeys.
would that still result in user interaction "you don't have a wallet that can fulfill this request?".
Yeah, I think that's what Android is converging to: show a "no credential available" UI.
It actually might be nice if this can lead to a screen where verifier can prompt the user to install wallet(s)?
That seems reasonable and worth exploring further.
Yeah, thought that that's outside the scope of the standard... that's gets into platform specific experience stuff. But it's a great suggestion @Sakurann.
The
CredentialRequestOptions
dictionary provides CredentialMediationRequirement mediation that defaults to "optional".The other possible values are:
I think that any call to
.get()
will be user mediated (i.e., will show UI). Thus, we should throw a type error for anything but "required" user mitigation.