- From: Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:46:04 -0400
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5326FC9C.2010800@gmail.com>
I also oppose it. I think it is easy for the applications to implement
their own version of this, but very hard to decide what the correct
value should be in the general case.
- Jim
On 3/17/2014 9:11 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 03/17/2014 05:01 AM, Kiran Kumar wrote:
>> Thank you steev,
>> Please let me know if any one is opposing this to add to bug list....
>
> If it's not obvious, I have stated that I oppose it - I don't see that
> it is a necessary requirement, and I see it as increasing complexity.
>
> So we're 1-1 in commenters.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kiran.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Steev James <steev.a.james@gmail.com
>> <mailto:steev.a.james@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Proposal seems to be fine for me.
>> +1 for adding defaultDevice to getMediaDevice.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Kiran Kumar
>> <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com <mailto:g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:ibc@aliax.net> <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 2014-03-10 6:51 GMT+01:00 Kiran Kumar
>> <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com
>> <mailto:g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>
>> >>> <mailto:g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>
>> <mailto: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> <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>
>> <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Jim Barnett
Genesys
Received on Monday, 17 March 2014 13:47:00 UTC