Aglet

Prioritize notification permission timing with user intent

Permission timing matters when a surprise request blocks future delivery or a person has not yet experienced the feature it supports. Compare page-load, first useful event, explicit bell, and later settings triggers. A focused rationale may help more than another prompt.

Decide where the work belongs

  1. Name the prompt cost

    Describe what the person was doing when the prompt appeared and what they could understand. Compare surprise, contextual, and user-initiated triggers. Keep denial recovery separate from the decision to ask.

  2. Compare trigger options

    Set page-load, after first value, after explicit notification choice, bell action, and settings-only paths beside one another. Consider platform permission rules and a useful app state after denial. Prefer a trigger tied to a clear user request.

  3. Choose the first slice

    Record feature, prompt, owner, and revisit evidence. Decide whether to change timing, rationale, denial recovery, or settings link. Preserve current and no-prompt paths so the queue decision remains testable. Name the setting path after a declined request. Tie the queue choice to a clear moment of user intent.

What to carry forward

Prioritize permission changes where timing interrupts a meaningful task or leaves no recovery after decline. The decision should name user trigger and fallback. If the request is already contextual and reversible, queue delivery or copy issues separately.

Technical background: Chrome developer documentation.

Keep the decision with the work.

Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.

Create an account See the product workflow