W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob-camera@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Project status

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:46:02 +0000
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
CC: "public-coremob-camera@w3.org" <public-coremob-camera@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F9981AFB970564408FEB7DFCF62D4408436C5F3F@PRN-MBX01-4.TheFacebook.com>
On 12/3/12 4:34 PM, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>> 
>> A camera app for anything beyond mobile is going to look strange. (Have
>> you ever tired taking a picture with a tablet? It's awkward[1].)
>> 
>> I suggest we split-up the work into two applications.
>
>Can we split the work into two functionalities but leave it as one app,
>where the camera functionality is only available if you have a camera?

That would require making the camera auto sync with the DropBox account,
which is significantly more complex in terms of JS architecture, but which
would also simplify UX. Let me think about it.

>Can we (also) address the following scenario without Dropbox (E.g., just
>pushing to an HTTP server):
>
> * With my phone I take a photo.
> * The photo is pushed to a server
> * Any clients who have asked to be notified of updates are notified
> * They reload and have the latest photo.

This requires the development of a dedicated server and auth mechanism and
is already possible using Dropbox. I'm not sure what the benefits are and
I don;t have resources to build this.

>That way I can take a photo with my phone and it shows up on the tv
>screen on the wall (after a short delay).

If that's the use case, you get it for free with dropbox.

--tobie
Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 15:46:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 3 December 2012 15:46:29 GMT