Re: Screen sharing function name

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:

>  On 2/9/15 12:28 PM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>
>  I don't think "sharing" really has anything to do with it.  We don't
> call it "getCameraShare" or "getMicrophoneShare", for example.
>
>
> But that's what it is. Like the doorhangers say, they're requests for the
> user to "share" their "camera and microphone with" the app.
>

​That's not what the Chrome doorhanger says :).  It says "
http://somedomain.com wants to use your camera and microphone."​  The word
"share" doesn't appear.

But it doesn't matter.  We're talking about a name developer and only
developers will see.  End users will never see the name of this method.


>
> While getSharedUserMedia() would be accurate, it's redundant, because the
> user is an implicit participant (either the subject or joint observer of
> the experience being filmed), so getUserMedia() works.
> ​
>
​
>
>
> Not so for getSystemMedia(). There's no relationship with a user implicit
> in that statement. It sounds like a call that doesn't involve a user at all
> (computer-generated diagnostic media streams and test patterns)?
>
>
So I think we need to put "share" or "user" in there, since that's the
> important point of this API:
>
>     getSharedScreenMedia() or getUsersScreenMedia() ?
>
>
​I disagree.  To me, the words "shared" and "users" convey no meaning to
the developer who will be calling the method.  The just want to find the
method that gives them the screen.  Only the word "screen" is really
relevant here.


>  However, since this ultimately an API for developers, calling it what
> developers would expect might make sense.  If the answer to "how do I get a
> screenshare track?" is "call getScreenShare()", that might make sense.
> Plus, I think no one would ever say "what does getScreenShare do?", because
> it would be pretty obvious.  So, "getScreenShare" may have merit in that
> regard.
>
>
> That might work. Others have mentioned we should try to follow the
> template get(x|y)Media(), and I think that makes sense, regardless of any
> love for that way of phrasing.
>

I'd be fine with getScreenMedia.



>
>
> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>
>