- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 09:28:41 -0800
- To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
- Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
We're heading into implementation-ville here. So this is basically conjecture, so caveat lector... On 3 December 2013 09:11, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com> wrote: > 1. In the case where one or more devices meet the mandatory constraints, are they the only ones that are presented to the user? Well, it seems that the concept of "mandatory" is rigid and unyielding. I'd suggest that if we want to deny the user that control, then that would be correct. I have never found the arguments regarding "mandatory" particularly compelling. Now that we expose information about devices to applications that allow them to identify audio and video devices (and also facing modes), I find this even less compelling. > 2. In the case where no device meets the mandatory constraints, do we assume that the UA can explain the constraints clearly enough so that the user can tell what sort of device is needed? Nope. I wouldn't expect the browser to be able to explain the constraints. It might say "Your current set of cameras (list of cameras) is not adequate for the current application, can you provide any alternatives?" But see above. > 3. In the case where no device meets the constraints, do we present a list of all attached devices to the user? Would we let him select a microphone when the app has asked for a camera? That's just silly. The app already has the opportunity to see whether there is a camera present; if it asks for a camera when there are none present, I have no problem whatsoever in never providing a response to what amounts to a stupid request.
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 17:29:09 UTC