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

RE: An alternate approach to enumerating devices

From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:57:53 +0000
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D2810324F3@GENSJZMBX02.msg.int.genesyslab.com>
I know that most users never change the defaults, but I still think that some of these difficulties are reduced if we give the user multiple security settings:  
1.  "don't tell apps anything" (i.e., the app must call gUM to get any information at all)
2.  "tell them if I have video/audio, but nothing more"  (i.e. before the app calls gUM)
3.  "let them see labels, facing info, etc."

(If we introduce a distinction between trusted and untrusted apps, the levels above would apply to untrusted ones, I would think.)  This way the (few) people who understand the situation and care can get the behavior that they want.  

- Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] 
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:38 PM
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Re: An alternate approach to enumerating devices

On 03/21/2013 08:23 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
> It may just be that the format is odd on my system, but is 'facing' available if the app is not trusted?
Opinions sought .... "facing" was the last thing I added. Exposing it means that the drive-by web now can make a very good guess on whether you're a phone or a PC; not exposing it means that the app has to do at least one camera grab blind (see other thread).

Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 19:58:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:15 UTC