Different applications may want to have different UIs to control these settings. One application may just want to control a single camera and audio device. Another application may want to have multiple cameras all used in concert, and allow the left/right/center camera/mic devices to be individually selected. It is unrealistic to expect UAs to be able to present a UI that can fully accommodate all scenarios, even with app-specific settings. On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote: > >> I agree. While I like the notion of priority in the channels design, >> where call audio will cause other sounds to have their volume reduced, I >> would still like to be able to control the actual output device directly in >> the application, so that it can do things like play audio out of speakers >> but switch if a certain preferred headset is connected. >> > > I'm having trouble thinking of a situation where that sort of thing is > better controlled by the application than by the UA. > > I can certainly see the case for the UA remembering application-specific > settings --- and that works fine with the logical channels approach. I > cannot yet see the case for each application having its own UI for this. > > Rob > -- > Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni > le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa > stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, > 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp > waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * > * >
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2013 23:15:18 UTC