Re: Proposal to add defaultDevice attribute to getMediaDevices.

Proposal seems to be fine for me.
+1 for adding defaultDevice to getMediaDevice.


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Kiran Kumar <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>wrote:

> Most of the folks are silent on this proposal... is that silence means
> supports or oppose... ?
> I welcome your inputs.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Kiran Kumar <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Gili,
>>
>> AFAIK app will not have any control on selecting another device, in case
>> of unavailability of the selected device.
>> For example., If 3 devices are available and App is showing 1 as default
>> (according to its previous selection), 2 is the device selected by user,
>> and 3 is the default device according to browser platform. In this case if
>> user selects device-2 and if it is not available, then browser will get the
>> access for device-3 and not device-1 as shown by app. App will fail in this
>> case.
>>
>> Another scenario is, if the previously selected device is not available
>> in the list of devices (in case if that user moves from home to office
>> where he has used some external device etc .. ) App can not judge a default
>> device.
>>
>> If App is really willing to show the default as that corresponding to
>> previously selected one, then it can choose it with default selection but
>> highlight the browser specified default device to indicate that the
>> highlighted device will be selected in case of unavailability of selected
>> device. (Since this specification does not have any control on app
>> implementations, this is just my suggestion as one way for implementing
>> App).
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  The concept of a "default" device without a context seems like a losing
>>> proposition. As Harald mentioned, there is no objective "default" when
>>> choosing between front and back cameras on a phone. I suggest that the
>>> "default device" should really corresponds to the last selected device in
>>> some application-defined context. Meaning, applications will probably want
>>> to default to the last device used and expect different "defaults"
>>> depending on the context (e.g. microphone plugged in, or not).
>>>
>>> Gili
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/03/2014 1:11 AM, Kiran Kumar wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Harald Alvestrand
>>> > <harald@alvestrand.no <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no><harald@alvestrand..no>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On 03/13/2014 01:32 PM, Kiran Kumar wrote:
>>> >> Dear Harald, Please find my comments inline.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Harald Alvestrand
>>> >> <harald@alvestrand.no <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no><harald@alvestrand.no>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On 03/12/2014 12:32 PM, Kiran Kumar wrote:
>>> >>> Hi, I would like to add this to bug list. Please let me know if
>>> >>> you have any comments.
>>> >>
>>> >> I would like to not add it.
>>> >>
>>> >> As has been noted, there isn't always an obvious default device. So
>>> >> if the flag is added, the JS must be written to handle the
>>> >> condition where no default device is in the list. But since this
>>> >> may be a rare case, JS apps might choose to ignore this possibility
>>> >> - which is bad for app portability.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> [Kiran] It is not obvious to have a defaultDevice but most of the
>>> >> mobile devices have default devices like front camera or back
>>> >> camera... Any new thing will increase the processing, but I don't
>>> >> agree addition of this attribute will result in too much complexity
>>> >> for checking. Generally most of the devices have a single device.
>>> >
>>> > Actually you illustrate my point. Which of the front and back cameras
>>> > on my phone is the "default" camera?
>>> >
>>> > *[Kiran]* This attribute helps in determining that.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Also, the moment you plug a Bluetooth or USB headset into a device,
>>> > it has multiple audio devices. I think the theory that most devices
>>> > have a single device (of each type) is a weak one.
>>> >
>>> > *[Kiran]* Agreed.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> If the JS wishes to get a device, and it doesn't care about which
>>> >> one, it could just getUserMedia(). Which one is returned may vary
>>> >> depending on configuration parameters, constraints, or whether some
>>> >> other program has opened the device (for OSes that do exclusive
>>> >> device access).
>>> >>
>>> >> [Kiran] This will be helpful to give the judgement to user,
>>> >> ofcourse getMediaDevices() itself is meant for that. But in some
>>> >> applications, we can have a use case like if the selected device is
>>> >> not available, then go for the default device, instead of resulting
>>> >> in error.
>>> >>
>>> >> [Kiran] For example, my laptop is having a built-in-camera, when I
>>> >> want to chat with my friend, I will attache a webcam that supports
>>> >> high definition/ with higher pixel number. I prefer to access the
>>> >> external webcam attached, but if I am not able to access that in
>>> >> any case, instead of resulting in failure it will select the
>>> >> default built-in-camera.
>>> >
>>> > That's how it's supposed to work if you give the ID of your attached
>>> > webcam as an optional constraint: If it's not available, you'll get
>>> > another one.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > *[Kiran]* If the devices is enabled with 3 devices, as you specified
>>>
>>> > above like through Bluetooth or any other means, and if the device
>>> > selected by user is not available, then out of the 2 remaining
>>> > devices, how the user can come to know which one it will be selected
>>> > by default ?
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> The only use case I can see is to preselect the default device in a
>>> >> list of devices, so that the user can tell which device will be
>>> >> opened if he doesn't select one - and as seen above, this is not
>>> >> guaranteed to be the device that actually gets selected (some other
>>> >> program may have grabbed it before the user selects a device).
>>> >>
>>> >> [Kiran] I agree.
>>> >>
>>> >> I see increased complexity, without a corresponding size of
>>> >> benefit. So I'd like to not do this.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> [Kiran] I see more benefit as  I explained in the above example.
>>> >> What do you say ....
>>> >
>>> > *[Kiran] *I can say one more use case here, that instead of just
>>>
>>> > default selection. 1. An app can provide the default selection for
>>> > the high resolution camera or sophisticated mic and highlight the
>>> > default devices, so that if the selected device is not available,
>>> > then highlighted device will be selected. 2. If user selects a third
>>> > device instead of default selected device and the platform default
>>> > device, then in case of in-availability of selected device, it should
>>> > select the default device.
>>> >
>>> > I'd like more opinions...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kiran Kumar
>>> >>> <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com <mailto:g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com><g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It is not universally true for all,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> When I connect an external webcam to my desktop PC, which has no
>>> >>> camera, Mozilla is displaying its names as YUV-xxx-camera.
>>> >>> Laptops are also not showing "default" prefix in the names.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am not sure which devices/SO's are showing the "default"
>>> >>> prefix.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks, Kiran.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo
>>> >>> <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net> <ibc@aliax.net>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2014-03-10 6:51 GMT+01:00 Kiran Kumar <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com
>>> >>> <mailto:g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com> <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>>:
>>>
>>> >>>> I would like to propose adding a defaultDevice attribute which
>>> >>>> indicates which device is the default device out of the list.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> dictionary MediaDeviceInfo { DOMString       deviceId;
>>> >>>> MediaDeviceKind kind; DOMString       label; DOMString
>>> >>>> groupId;
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> bool            defaultDevice; };
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> This will allow a default value checked while displaying the
>>> >>>> list of devices.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the multimedia subsystem in
>>> >>> some SO's report a "default sound card", "default mic" and
>>> >>> "default webcam".
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net><ibc@aliax.net>
>>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>