W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Revised Constraints modification API proposal

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:16:38 +0200
Message-ID: <50360306.7060203@alvestrand.no>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 08/22/2012 08:44 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
>> From: Travis Leithead [mailto:travis.leithead@microsoft.com]
>>
>>> From: Dan Burnett [mailto:dburnett@voxeo.com] On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:56
>>> PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
>>>> As a reminder, the goal of this proposal is to facilitate "informed
>>>> constraints" (i.e., allow constraints to be applied after existing
>>>> client capabilities are known) in order to avoid potential pitfalls
>>>> of blindly over-constrained use of getUserMedia across a range of
>>>> different
>>> devices.
>>>
>>> I always wanted to have capabilities along with constraints, and I'm
>>> pleased to see (finally) a realistic capabilities proposal.  Given
>>> that we will not always have capabilities available for privacy
>>> reasons, I'd like to understand better these "potential pitfalls of
>>> blindly over-constrained use".  I have heard that mentioned but have
>>> not yet seen enough evidence to convince me that this is a real problem.
>> Could you point me to some examples?
>>
>> [TODO]
> Ha ha! Sent too soon.
>
> Well, there have been a few discussions on this in the past. The big
> hangup I have with it, is the ability to make pretty much any optional constraint
> a mandatory constraint.
>
> This, in theory, leads to potentially goofy mandatory constraints like "must have
> a flash" which causes every device without a flash to be flat-out rejected. My
> general belief is that while the developer is trying to be helpful, it's really up
> to the user to determine what is acceptable. If the video appears too dark, then
> try to turn on the flash, but don't have the UA enforce that constraint before giving
> the user a chance to try it out.
>
> Obviously, I'm OK with video/audio as mandatory constraints. This is because those
> are really not constraints, but device selection criteria. Perhaps there's some room
> here for compromise, but as the current design stands, I'm not comfortable with it.
>
>
And if the application is one like my "Android "Search Light" 
application, where the whole, only, and complete point of the 
application is to turn on the flash?

I wouldn't like to constrain applications to only those that use devices 
in the ways we expect.

                  Harald
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 10:17:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:11 UTC