martinthomson
commented
7 years ago User agents provide the capability you describe already. Can you further more justification for why you believe that applications need to be able to request this. This could be used for a denial of service on other applications, so we'd need to understand more about how this would be controlled.
The linked email seems to say something else:
For instance, a person may be reading an article’s comments and the comment feed is updated every 30 seconds to add additional comments. That may cause the layout to jump and the user may want to turn off the comment pushes, or slow down the update to once every minute.
I think that this demonstrates a misunderstanding of how the Push API fits with the other capabilities of the platform. The kind of error that Ted describes here is unaffected by the existence of push. Sites can commit this sort of usability mistake using fetch or websockets (and they frequently do in my experience). Adding push, use of which is generally inadvisable in the scenarios described anyway, doesn't make this problem worse.
delapuente
LJWatson
michael-n-cooper
beverloo
JaninaSajka
The Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group review of Push API suggests that additional feature support is required by emerging use cases.
APA believes a mechanism is needed to allow applications to temporarily block any push notifications or events. All such notifications or events should be queued until the application requesting temporary blocking has cleared the blocking request.
Two use cases supporting such a feature:
==Use Case #1: time-critical tasks
A user engaged in a financial transaction at the point of making (or receiving) payment should not be interrupted by unrelated notifications and events. This is especially important for persons with disabilities relying on assistive technology, but is also relevant to all users of emerging web payments specifications.
==Use Case #2: reduce interruptions
Users need the ability to interact with certain web content without automated updates that might cause presented content to update in an adverse manner.
This might be satisfied by allowing temporary pauses in push events, or by controlling a minimum time interval between push events.
For more on this use case see the comment at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2017May/0026.html
APA tracking of Push API comments