- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:39:56 -0700
Kristof Zelechovski wrote: > Audible mouse feedback is an OS thing, not an HTML thing. > While users will certainly have applications and os-level accessibility tools, web designers may have their own unique methods of presenting feedback, and I believe, given enough easy-access, innovative interfaces will come from it. > I would rather have programmatic access to the MIDI synthesizer rather than > be able to simulate it with a beep. > There is no guarantee that a host system will have a MIDI synthesizer, and MIDI itself can quite simply be implemented with a series of audio clips, a sound font. Given a very constrained environment (think old cell phone ring tones), you can still "simulate it, with a beep", to provide some form of fall back. > How do you detect that the client mixer is too slow? > How do you detect that the client player is too slow with the current audio tag? > Why can't you just get the premixed jingles from the server? > You can get pre-mixed jingles from the server, but that may mean high bandwidth in an otherwise resource constrained environment. > Isn't the reading voice a CSS thing? > Yes. So? > Isn't sound transformation hard enough to deserve a complete API? I think > allowing playing with binary audio data is not going to help most > programmers who do not have the slightest idea of how to deal with it. > Sound transformation does not need a "complete" API, but there are certainly a few common filters which would make things easier on end-developers. Given any amount of support, you'll soon see programmers developing their own libraries. > Imagine a Canvas interface with PutPixel only. > I've imagined Canvas with putPixel (and setPixel) and that's enough to support arbitrary drawing, and arbitrary image formats, and that's better than nothing. Most programmers will be able to use a Javascript library, just as they've done in the past. If you have particulars you'd like to see in an initial API, do share. I could think of FFT/inverse FFT as a particular function which might make sense in an initial API, as they're very particular functions, they're resource intensive, and they're in common use. > IMHO, > Chris > >
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 08:39:56 UTC