- From: Christopher Phillips <christopher.phillips@umb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:48:34 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Feb 13, 2004, at 3:04 PM, David Woolley wrote: > Given the choice I would almost always go for a downloadable version > of a media file (the viewer can attempt to display it during the > download, of course). While there are definitely some advantages to downloadable media files, there are other reasons for streaming besides protecting intellectual property. Depending on what type of media file and what media player you are using to access it, sometimes you do have to wait for the entire file to download before you can view it (though some players do offer pseudo-streaming). In addition, streaming at a low bitrate allows users on dial-up connections to view lower quality video when downloading an entire media file would be unfeasible. Streaming video can also be setup so that it delivers a stream appropriate to whatever the user has set their settings as- it would deliver different stream to someone on a dialup connection vs. someone on broadband. From a site administrator perspective, streaming also is a much more efficient use of bandwith- this can be important if the video is going to be viewed by a lot of people. > Although you can, normally, reposition in a streaming file, there is > normally a long pause as the pipeline clears and the latency buffer > is rebuilt, but with a downloaded copy, you can reposition quickly > to any key frame. It is important to realize that you can only reposition a downloaded file after it has been downloaded, even thought the video may begin pseudo-streaming, you have to wait until the download is complete to skip around. All that said, streaming does require a streaming server to be setup and you don't have a copy of the file one your local computer once it is downloaded. Christopher Phillips Institute for Community Inclusion Curb Cut Learning http://www.communityinclusion.org/curbcut/
Received on Friday, 13 February 2004 17:48:37 UTC