RE: An alternate approach to enumerating devices

Yes, I was assuming something like 6 coordinates as well (3 for location, 3 for direction.)  I agree that we don't need to go into this level of detail, BUT... I would like us to agree that if we do it will be separate from the 'facing' values.  So we should be clear on exactly what 'facing' means.  It seems to me that it applies to cameras attached to the user's device, where 4 or 5 of the six values can be inferred with reasonable accuracy (so that the enumed value of 'facing' is giving at most 2 of the values.)

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:00 PM
To: Jim Barnett
Cc: Cullen Jennings (fluffy); Martin Thomson; Cullen Jennings; public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Re: An alternate approach to enumerating devices

On 04/23/2013 04:54 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
> I don't have an opinion on what the current enumeration should be, but am concerned about forward compatibility in the case where we have an array of cameras in the room.  We wouldn't want to end up with enumeration values like behind-me-facing-bald-spot, behind-me-but-a-bit-lower-so-you-cant-see-the-bald-spot, etc.
>
> Do we assume that 'facing' applies only to cameras that are attached to the user's device, and that we would have another, more sophisticated, description for cameras elsewhere in the room?  (Those cameras wouldn't have any value for 'facing', or  perhaps a special value meaning 'elsewhere').  I don't think that we should spend time on this more complicated description now, but we should decide where it will go if and when we need it.

I think the next level up in complexity is to give camera positions in six-coordnates notation.
I think that's where CLUE is going; I don't think we should expect to support this level in WEBRTC.

>
> - Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 10:09 PM
> To: Martin Thomson
> Cc: Cullen Jennings; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; public-media-capture@w3.org
> Subject: Re: An alternate approach to enumerating devices
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I assume that you want to extend the "facing" enumeration to encompass
>> new properties:
>>
>> "rear": pointed (approximately) from the device to the space directly
>> away from the device user
>> "front": pointed (approximately) from the device directly toward the
>> device user "left" pointed (approximately) from the device to the
>> space to the device user's left "right" pointed (approximately) from
>> the device to the space to the device user's right
> Yes, that sounds good. I think this represents the optimal point on the slope as it represents what we have deployed today in millions of devices. This would solve a bunch of issues for me - does anyone see any harm in using this as the stawman list to move forward with?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 01:47:59 UTC