W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Rationalizing new/start/end/mute/unmute/enabled/disabled

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:04:56 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+ftrDk4whjU+LD=XF=1zZaYswqC7N4BJVUnN6OrkPw+Rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Cc: public-media-capture@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>wrote:

> On 3/25/2013 5:55 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
>> I think that it's fair to say that the current state of the
>> MediaStream[Track] states is pretty dire.  At least from a usability
>> perspective.
>>
>
> I generally agree with the approach here.  I also agree that the
> MediaStream should be an explicit rollup of the states of the tracks (just
> as I feel we need a stream.stop() in addition to track.stop(), even though
> you can build one in JS yourself).
>
> One thing I really want to see described (doesn't have to be in the spec)
> is how an application can provide a "Hold" operation where live video is
> replaced with a video slate and/or pre-recorded animation/audio, and do it
> without an offer/answer exchange.  The MediaStream Processing API would
> have made this fairly simple, but since we don't have that, we need to
> define something.  WebAudio (if/when implemented) may help (with some pain)
> for the audio side, but doesn't help us with video.
>

Have you looked at
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html?


>
> The real blocker here is giving a way for a MediaStreamTrack (in a
> MediaStream that's already AddStream()ed to a PeerConnection) to get a
> different source.  Currently, the only easy way I can see it is very kludgy
> and probably higher overhead/delay than we'd like:
>
>        video_hold.src = my_hold_animation.ogg;
>        elevator_music = video_hold.**captureStreamUntilEnded();
>        source = getUserMedia();
>        video.srcObject = source;
>        stream = video.captureStreamUntilEnded(**);
>        pc.addStream(stream);
>        video.play();
>        ...
>        <user hits Hold>
>        video.srcObject = elevator_music;
>        video_hold.play();
>
> and the same to switch back.  Putting up a video slate on video mute (but
> keeping audio alive) is more fun...
>
> This sequence makes me sad...  And will induce extra delay in all
> likelihood, since you need to route through two mediastreams and a media
> element for normal operation.
>
> The only alternative I see in the current spec might be to have two tracks
> always, and disable the live track and enable the Hold/slate track - but
> that would still cause a negotiationneeded I believe before it took affect.
>
> p.s. For Hold and Mute in a video context, I rarely if ever want "black"
> as an application.  I may want to send information about Hold/Mute states
> to the receiver so the receiver can do something smart with the UI, but at
> a minimum I want to be able to provide a slate/audio/music/Muzak-**version-of-Devo's-Whip-It
> (yes, I heard that in a Jack In The Box...)
>
> --
> Randell Jesup
> randell-ietf@jesup.org
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 18:05:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:24:40 UTC