Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Media Capture Capability Elements (part of PEPC) (Issue #1218)

toreini left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#1218)

Thanks for submitting this work. We have the following concerns regarding this spec and request clarification:

1) The spec should require that the mute trigger be _origin-bound_ and _device-bound_. (This is for consistency with [Media Stream permission policy requirements](https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-main/#permissions-integration:~:text=values%2E-,Then,true,-%2E).)

2) Whether using `getUserMedia()` or the latest version of this proposal, every app that offers to "mute" a device retains the prerogative to unmute that device at any moment. Do you see any opportunities to provide security guarantees to users, that their camera will not suddenly be re-activated without their consent? (following the [encoureged behaviour in Media Stream permission policy](https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-main/#permissions-integration:~:text=Agent%3A-,The%20User%20Agent%20is,met))

  We feel that there should be potential for UA interaction to reassure users that once their camera/audio is muted, it will not be suddenly re-activated without their consent. Does this design leave some space to explore solutions to this problem? Do you think it would be possible to standardize such guarantees?

3) This spec will fomalise the following action-sequence: _mute → unmute → mute_. As the mute action is already fomally defined in [Media Capture and Streams](https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-main/#track-muted). We request the spec developers consider a clear definition for the action sequence to avoid confusion.

Furthermore, we have some observations regarding the explainer:

* There are two links included: one related to PEPC (which was a separate TAG review) and another for `<usermedia>`. The explainer for the latter, which we assumed is the focus of this review, does not follow the standard format. It lacks sections such as "S\&P considerations" and "alternatives considered" - these are important in order for readers and reviewers to understand the trade-offs made during the design of the proposal. Can you please update the explainer to be consistent with the [explainer format](https://www.w3.org/TR/explainer-explainer/)?
 
 **_Note: You may find the similar discussions in [the `<geolocation>` explainer](https://github.com/WICG/PEPC/blob/main/geolocation_explainer.md) helpful._**
    

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1218#issuecomment-5166983302
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1218/5166983302@github.com>