W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > November 2013

Re: Why does screen sharing require a browser extension?

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:13:24 -0500
Message-ID: <5293AF64.6060604@bbs.darktech.org>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 25/11/2013 3:10 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 25 November 2013 12:05, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>> Please provide an example.
>> [...] you can make this obvious by flashing
>> the border of the area being captured. This is similar to webcams lighting
>> up when they're on. There is no way a user would miss that visual queue.
> That's what I thought, until I got some very clear information to the
> contrary.  Skype places a red border around the screen when sharing. A
> colorblind friend says to me: "so that's what that black border is".


 1. Pick colors which no one is color-blind to.
 2. Your friend *saw* the border, he just didn't know what it meant. I
    am willing to bet that if it pulsed, he'd definitely see it.
 3. If you add the alert icon with the tooltip as Java did, there would
    be no confusion as to the meaning of the border. I've used this
    feature live and I can tell you it was very easy to understand.

>> TLS alone would not, but TLS with Chrome App Store would. I'm saying that
>> when a user hits a website that uses screen capturing, Chrome should check
>> whether its TLS certificate has been approved in Chrome App store. If not,
>> it should deny access. This gives you all the power of App Store (approval
>> process, banning, etc) without the user needing to download an explicit
>> plugin.
> That model doesn't scale.

How does requiring each app to publish a separate extension on Chrome 
Store scale any better?

Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 20:14:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:52 UTC