- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:18:38 +0200
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Den 21. mai 2015 04:53, skrev Jan-Ivar Bruaroey: > On 5/19/15 10:29 AM, Joe Berkovitz wrote: >> 2. How would the WG feel about including more "filtered" information >> in the MediaDeviceInfos returned by enumerateDevices(), other than the >> device label > > I'm going to take a stab at guessing that the original intent with > 'label' was for web-devs to look up the info they care about themselves. The original intent with "label" was to enable web-devs to present a device picker interface that was no worse than what one could do in browser chrome. The engineers who built this have a great deal of experience with just how hard it is to say something sensible about a device - presenting the USB device IDs (for things that present themselves as USB devices) is a lot more precise than labels, but not very user friendly. > > E.g. label == " Logitech HD Pro Webcam C920" -> look in table of what I > care about scraped from > http://wiki.oz9aec.net/index.php/Logitech_HD_Pro_Webcam_C920 > > I.e. an end-run around workgroups and browsers having to formalize every > spec sheet known to humankind. > > I should say I see evidence this isn't always working so well, e.g. > android phones seem to give nonsense labels like "Camera front", and I > see a lot of microphones called "Built-in microphone" or "". There are a lot of nonsense labels around, yes. This reflects directly the state of play in device drivers. > How about a compromise like 'modelNumber', or maybe come up with better > rules for label? > > Also from a practical standpoint, not every platform is chock full of > info here. OSX for example seems surprisingly tight-lipped about its > hardware. Which is the reason for the phenomenon you describe above.
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2015 08:19:09 UTC