W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > August 2013

Re: Proposal: Time out for getUserMedia.

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 02:14:35 -0400
Message-ID: <5220384B.1000904@bbs.darktech.org>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org

     Blocking forever is certainly bad from a usability point of view.

     I would point out that if the API allowed us to cancel a 
getUserMedia(), as opposed to simply supplying a timeout, we could 
implement even more advanced use-cases (where the process is interrupted 
by some other external stimuli). If getUserMedia() were to return an ID 
then you could use a design similar to setTimeout(), clearTimeout(). 
What do you think?

Gili

On 30/08/2013 12:42 AM, Kiran Kumar wrote:
> I think these are required features, for application developers.
>
> For 1. There are possibilities like pop-up may be closed many times 
> knowingly or unknowingly. Then the application will wait for the 
> getUserMedia() callback indefinitely. API implementation can solve 
> this problem (as that in chromium).
>
> For 2. In the earlier implementations, pop-up will get the highest 
> priority, and will not allow the user to do any operations until he 
> answers it. But now, the pop-up allows user to continue his work even 
> with out answering the pop-up. In this regard, there are chances like 
> the pop-up many not be answered for long time and application will be 
> waiting for the response. It will be better if getUserMedia() supports 
> the time out case, to simplify the application implementation.
>
> This is just my thinking at this particular point of time. Some other 
> people can have  their own use cases based on their design and 
> implementation.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Kiran.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Martin Thomson 
> <martin.thomson@gmail.com <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 28 August 2013 23:27, Kiran Kumar <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com
>     <mailto:g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > 1) When a getUserMedia() is called, it will prompt for user
>     acceptance. If
>     > the user closes the pop up, then the application is not
>     receiving any error.
>     > So I would like to suggest that getUserMedia should respond with
>     > permission_denied error.
>     >
>     > 2) After calling getUserMedia(), the pop-up for user acceptance
>     is waiting
>     > indefinitely for user acceptance. It would be better, if that
>     prompt gets
>     > timed out after some time, and send a negative status response
>     to the
>     > applications (the response may be permission_denied or
>     user_time_out error).
>
>     It's possible to regard both of these as browser implementation
>     features.  Is there anything specific that you believe that the API
>     needs to support?
>
>
Received on Friday, 30 August 2013 06:15:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:19 UTC