- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 23:14:16 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- cc: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > For both of these use cases, getUserMedia() seems like a much better > > solution than <input type=file>. The former can work in real-time, the > > latter cannot. > > I agree that I don't see any strong use-cases for a declarative > mechanism for allowing upload specifically from cameras or > microphones, if a scripted mechanism is available. (Does > getUserMedia() allow taking photos? It looks like it's only for audio > and video right now.) > > > That's a UI issue. There's no reason <input type="file" accept="image/*"> > > shouldn't make the camera a prominent or even default part of the UI. > > Different uses of <input type="file" accept="image/*"> will have > different probabilities that the user will want to use their camera. > For Google Goggles, the user is practically certain to want to use > their camera to take the image. For something like Google Goggles, you want video, not a photograph. > For a software distribution website that asks the user to upload a > screenshot of the software, the user is certain to *not* want to use > their camera, because the site doesn't want a photograph at all. The > author needs to be able to provide the correct UI to users, using their > knowledge of what sort of file they actually want. I don't see a problem with making both available, even in this case. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 23:14:40 UTC