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

RE: updates to requirements document

From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:36:58 +0000
To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B236B24082A4094A85003E8FFB8DDC3C1A4783AE@SOM-EXCH04.nuance.com>
Hello Jim, thanks for putting this together.

The 1st requirement under REMOTE MEDIA currently states: "The UA must be able to transmit media to one or more remote sites and to receive media from them."  My concern is that the language is insufficient to handle all of the scenarios put forward in the section titled "Capturing a media stream" under "Design Considerations and Remarks".  These are:

1)      capture a video and upload to a video sharing site

2)      capture a picture for my user profile picture in a given web app

3)      capture audio for a translation site

4)      capture a video chat/conference

The first two transfer types would typically be handled as a bulk transfer after capture completes, which is a good fit for conventional transports like HTTP.  The fourth type is an obvious match to WebRTC.  The third type is a mix of the two.  The application prefers real time transmission, but is probably willing to sacrifice a few seconds of latency in the interest of reliable transport.  Something like an application-specific streaming protocol over WebSockets seems appropriate.

My request could be satisfied with the following new requirement: "The UA must allow the Application to access an encoded representation of the media while capture is in progress."  Implicit in this request is that the UA will not always explicitly handle media transfer, but I think that could be inferred from the other requirements.

Does this sound reasonable?

Thanks


From: Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 6:36 AM
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: updates to requirements document

I have filled out the  requirements section in the use case document (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/scenarios.html)  and added links from the scenarios to the requirements. I have not modified any existing content or taken anything out of the document.

There's still more work to do:

1) there are some free floating requirements that were suggested on the list but not incorporated in any of the scenarios.  Do we want to incorporate them into the scenarios or leave them as is?
2)  The scenarios contain lists of items that are similar to the requirements.  Do we want to remove them, or leave them in and modify them to match the requirements more closely?
3) I have organized the requirements into four classes: permissions, local media, remote media, and media capture.  Maybe it would  be better to have a different classification or a single list.

Let me know what you think.


-          Jim
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 23:37:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:10 UTC