On 5/12/16 4:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
This part should be fixable by creating a video stream which just
contains black (or a "anonymous user" icon or some such).
In theory yes, but I don't think the existing UX is salvageable when
mapped to mute (nowhere to unmute, and site now thinks it has a track),
plus there's a whole UX overhaul coming [1]. That's why I'm hoping we'll
solve this better later.
Of course, the UI would not be ideal since it would likely look
different than if the user face-mutes in-app.
Note that the spec has both track.muted and track.enabled.
track.enabled ("in-app mute") means the site controls things (hopefully
only on the user's behalf) and is relevant after users trust the site
with their camera (a malicious site can enable it back on at any time).
track.muted ("browser-chrome-only face-mute") has more teeth from a
privacy perspective, in that the site cannot override it.
From a permission standpoint, whether the use-case of "I trust this
site with my microphone, but not my camera (yet), so grant permission
but force-face-mute video for me, and I may or may not turn it on later"
adds value to Firefox, is something we could mull over.
A tangential use-case may be "I don't have a camera, but site tells me I
need one, so give it a fake one".
Those are the two use-cases I see lost by removal of "No video". Whether
they're still important may need a review.
So if the spec uses a different syntax for allowing the user to
face-mute, which can be turned on/off at any time, then implementing
that mechanism and hooking into that does indeed sound better. Is that
what you're referring to with the last paragraph in the original post?
I think the spec has the bits we need, so this ultimately boils down to
UX I think, and what we want to achieve.
/ Jonas
.: Jan-Ivar :.
[1] https://bugzil.la/1267607
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
