- From: Kiran Kumar <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:55:19 +0530
- To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGW1TF4uA9uNYs3zzb-nNN+jx2CkeEy7HQ6iWePuHCRHWhXT-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Most of the folks are silent on this proposal... is that silence means supports or oppose... ? I welcome your inputs. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Kiran Kumar <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>wrote: > Gili, > > AFAIK app will not have any control on selecting another device, in case > of unavailability of the selected device. > For example., If 3 devices are available and App is showing 1 as default > (according to its previous selection), 2 is the device selected by user, > and 3 is the default device according to browser platform. In this case if > user selects device-2 and if it is not available, then browser will get the > access for device-3 and not device-1 as shown by app. App will fail in this > case. > > Another scenario is, if the previously selected device is not available in > the list of devices (in case if that user moves from home to office where > he has used some external device etc .. ) App can not judge a default > device. > > If App is really willing to show the default as that corresponding to > previously selected one, then it can choose it with default selection but > highlight the browser specified default device to indicate that the > highlighted device will be selected in case of unavailability of selected > device. (Since this specification does not have any control on app > implementations, this is just my suggestion as one way for implementing > App). > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: > >> The concept of a "default" device without a context seems like a losing >> proposition. As Harald mentioned, there is no objective "default" when >> choosing between front and back cameras on a phone. I suggest that the >> "default device" should really corresponds to the last selected device in >> some application-defined context. Meaning, applications will probably want >> to default to the last device used and expect different "defaults" >> depending on the context (e.g. microphone plugged in, or not). >> >> Gili >> >> >> On 14/03/2014 1:11 AM, Kiran Kumar wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Harald Alvestrand >> > <harald@alvestrand.no <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no><harald@alvestrand.no>> >> wrote: >> > >> > On 03/13/2014 01:32 PM, Kiran Kumar wrote: >> >> Dear Harald, Please find my comments inline. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Harald Alvestrand >> >> <harald@alvestrand.no <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no><harald@alvestrand.no>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 03/12/2014 12:32 PM, Kiran Kumar wrote: >> >>> Hi, I would like to add this to bug list. Please let me know if >> >>> you have any comments. >> >> >> >> I would like to not add it. >> >> >> >> As has been noted, there isn't always an obvious default device. So >> >> if the flag is added, the JS must be written to handle the >> >> condition where no default device is in the list. But since this >> >> may be a rare case, JS apps might choose to ignore this possibility >> >> - which is bad for app portability. >> >> >> >> >> >> [Kiran] It is not obvious to have a defaultDevice but most of the >> >> mobile devices have default devices like front camera or back >> >> camera... Any new thing will increase the processing, but I don't >> >> agree addition of this attribute will result in too much complexity >> >> for checking. Generally most of the devices have a single device. >> > >> > Actually you illustrate my point. Which of the front and back cameras >> > on my phone is the "default" camera? >> > >> > *[Kiran]* This attribute helps in determining that. >> >> > >> > >> > Also, the moment you plug a Bluetooth or USB headset into a device, >> > it has multiple audio devices. I think the theory that most devices >> > have a single device (of each type) is a weak one. >> > >> > *[Kiran]* Agreed. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If the JS wishes to get a device, and it doesn't care about which >> >> one, it could just getUserMedia(). Which one is returned may vary >> >> depending on configuration parameters, constraints, or whether some >> >> other program has opened the device (for OSes that do exclusive >> >> device access). >> >> >> >> [Kiran] This will be helpful to give the judgement to user, >> >> ofcourse getMediaDevices() itself is meant for that. But in some >> >> applications, we can have a use case like if the selected device is >> >> not available, then go for the default device, instead of resulting >> >> in error. >> >> >> >> [Kiran] For example, my laptop is having a built-in-camera, when I >> >> want to chat with my friend, I will attache a webcam that supports >> >> high definition/ with higher pixel number. I prefer to access the >> >> external webcam attached, but if I am not able to access that in >> >> any case, instead of resulting in failure it will select the >> >> default built-in-camera. >> > >> > That's how it's supposed to work if you give the ID of your attached >> > webcam as an optional constraint: If it's not available, you'll get >> > another one. >> > >> > >> > *[Kiran]* If the devices is enabled with 3 devices, as you specified >> >> > above like through Bluetooth or any other means, and if the device >> > selected by user is not available, then out of the 2 remaining >> > devices, how the user can come to know which one it will be selected >> > by default ? >> > >> >> >> >> The only use case I can see is to preselect the default device in a >> >> list of devices, so that the user can tell which device will be >> >> opened if he doesn't select one - and as seen above, this is not >> >> guaranteed to be the device that actually gets selected (some other >> >> program may have grabbed it before the user selects a device). >> >> >> >> [Kiran] I agree. >> >> >> >> I see increased complexity, without a corresponding size of >> >> benefit. So I'd like to not do this. >> >> >> >> >> >> [Kiran] I see more benefit as I explained in the above example. >> >> What do you say .... >> > >> > *[Kiran] *I can say one more use case here, that instead of just >> >> > default selection. 1. An app can provide the default selection for >> > the high resolution camera or sophisticated mic and highlight the >> > default devices, so that if the selected device is not available, >> > then highlighted device will be selected. 2. If user selects a third >> > device instead of default selected device and the platform default >> > device, then in case of in-availability of selected device, it should >> > select the default device. >> > >> > I'd like more opinions... >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kiran Kumar >> >>> <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com <mailto:g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com><g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com> >> > >> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> It is not universally true for all, >> >>> >> >>> When I connect an external webcam to my desktop PC, which has no >> >>> camera, Mozilla is displaying its names as YUV-xxx-camera. >> >>> Laptops are also not showing "default" prefix in the names. >> >>> >> >>> I am not sure which devices/SO's are showing the "default" >> >>> prefix. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, Kiran. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Iņaki Baz Castillo >> >>> <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net> <ibc@aliax.net>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> 2014-03-10 6:51 GMT+01:00 Kiran Kumar <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com >> >>> <mailto:g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com> <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>>: >> >> >>>> I would like to propose adding a defaultDevice attribute which >> >>>> indicates which device is the default device out of the list. >> >>>> >> >>>> dictionary MediaDeviceInfo { DOMString deviceId; >> >>>> MediaDeviceKind kind; DOMString label; DOMString >> >>>> groupId; >> >>>> >> >>>> bool defaultDevice; }; >> >>>> >> >>>> This will allow a default value checked while displaying the >> >>>> list of devices. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the multimedia subsystem in >> >>> some SO's report a "default sound card", "default mic" and >> >>> "default webcam". >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- Iņaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net><ibc@aliax.net> >> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2014 09:26:08 UTC