- From: ShijunS via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:45:37 +0000
- To: public-media-capture-logs@w3.org
@jan-ivar > Is it the case where users have no device to grant that is the problem? Yes, for the use case I mentioned. The gUM() call is typically triggered by user interactions. If there is no capture device attached, it'd be a bad experience for app to show a button and return an "oops, no device" after user grants the permission. > Would it help to make an exception for the zero to one devices case? I think you meant 0-to-1 per deviceType. I don't think we should introduce any special case here. If we allow enumerateDevices already, suppressing (or delaying) the events won't provide any additional benefit or protection. BTW, I don't like the polyfill approach, given enumerateDevices could potentially activate each hardware devices, although for a very short period of time. A fast-pace polling through enumerateDevices can add unnecessary burden to the system. The devicechange event will provide the most efficient trigger, in addition to better developer experience. I think that is also the intention of the original design. -- GitHub Notification of comment by ShijunS Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/402#issuecomment-250294187 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 20:45:45 UTC