- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:54:28 +0100
- To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
- Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
Le jeudi 08 décembre 2011 à 17:11 -0500, Randell Jesup a écrit : > > Yeah, I can see that having to guide the user through a specific UI > > isn't great; but how frequently does one have to deal with this? Is this > > something that we need for the 1st release of Web RTC, or can this be a > > feature that a later release could address? > > I see this as quite trivial; I see little or no advantage in waiting. > > The scope reduction seems to be virtually nil to me. I could code it > up faster than writing this email... ;-) I would be better positioned to see if the required changes are trivial with a concrete proposal — could you suggest something :)? Dom > I > think in practice implementations would provide it, but > non-standardized. On discuss-webrtc there are already questions about > "how do I turn EC on/off?". > > > (anecdotically, I know I've never turned echo cancellation on or off in > > any video/audio communication system I've used) > > Depending on the hardware you have (many laptops have bad EC > characteristics, some headsets do) you may need to turn on/off EC. I've > seen it fairly often done in Skype or Vidyo. > > >> Another use-case might be where it knows (via several possible > >> mechanisms) the other side is muted; it knows there's no echo to cancel. > > > > I think the right way to deal with this would be for the Web app to let > > the browser know when the other side is muted (assuming using mechanisms > > that the browser doesn't have access to directly). > > Ok, but it's more complex than that at times (for example, if a youtube > video is playing you may want to keep EC on, so long as the EC code can > see the youtube audio going out). > > >> I also see no security reasons to avoid giving the app access to the EC > >> control. > > > > I can't think of any either; it's more a matter of reducing the scope of > > what we need to develop (or get others to develop), so that we can ship > > something earlier. > > The scope reduction seems to be virtually nil to me. I could code it up > faster than writing this email... ;-) >
Received on Friday, 9 December 2011 16:54:46 UTC