Re: An alternate approach to enumerating devices

I asked a simple question. What harm does adding these 2 more labels cause for you. I realize that several people representing vendors that do not make or use devices that have left and right cameras reponded. However, I do use multi camera systems and it is important to me.

So lets talk about complexity - lets say we only do back and front. The text in the spec is going to say if you see a value other than that you ignore it because that is who we have future extensibility for new things. Now if we add left and right to the spec, your code code will be *exactly* the same  - it will just ignore the left and right as they are not supported. So I do not buy this adds complexity in any meaningful way. 

Next lets talk about standards. We are trying to come to consensus on  a set of features that meet the needs to a broad group of people and can be widely implemented. So why do you push back on a suggestion like this when it costs you nothing? I don't push back on countless amount of things that I view as useless or poor designs but that I can live with. 

Next the narrow view of what is available today leads you to think left and right camera are not common. However, they clearly are common on higher end systems, and on 3D systems, and that is coming down in the market quickly. You should not be at all surprised if they become much more common and we are trying to design things that work in the future. 

So let me very clear, if you are going to object to left and right, then I am going to object to front and back and propose we put in a more general system that meets the needs of all the users because front and back don't meet my needs. 

In a more genreal framework, I would love to hear from people about the general problem here of are we trying to do something that meets the needs of a wide range of users 



On Apr 22, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:

> I don't think that devices with a left and/or right-oriented camera can even come close to the distribution of mobile devices that have front/rear cameras. I'd prefer to stick with the basic front/back and then see if need to augment in a future version of the standard.
> 
> From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com] 
> 
> 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 13:58:57 UTC