Re: Screen sharing function name

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
>
Yes. I don't find share evocative here.

Arguably, getUserMedia() was bad naming but given that we have
it, I think we need to substitute user with another word. I personally
prefer Output to System, but I can live with System.

-Ekr


>> 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 :.
>>
>>
>