From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1652268177; bh=vr05Tks56dCcLDiYZHVb52+nNp2LFlbuvMJo8gyrlSo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=t1Pny+VduOoTaLueAGwNTr+aDtImhpBDmwQriWT1905FY6At5YiW7CkJ34Qx1tARe iDdOeEGDPNiL4926xRc31EEpzx5hFtUg2aojHTAdwxatbpIFMCDAhN5PsORBEvvvtf ILGY/HRp/+IPgVbX9FnkCSOX7avyezcnbT/fine0qHaMFEuhgrX9vbCXr653hBcMuw PM8Ky06XBC6jLDbCk+x6wBFxPuXznZkK4SS1mNpis8Ac3EJ9uFz96jfj4vPriVJYL6 x5Ktzx9BE3egCd07B+hGgow92h6NZEIBFG0ic0GH/T3mqh/091GpYz/fGxrFKrZSWS Kav8610O5IjeA== To: Juliusz Chroboczek , Shevek In-Reply-To: <87pmkkz5d1.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <4008de81-3f67-2b9e-c83f-62bad76d72e0@anarres.org> <87v8udj9jh.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87r150ke9c.wl-jch@irif.fr> <8d647984-176a-fb1f-0017-54426c30f0d8@anarres.org> <87pmkkz5d1.wl-jch@irif.fr> Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 13:22:56 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87fslgwbxr.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID-Hash: 62OALGCVOEGUYD7RXHT727ZNJRON2FXQ X-Message-ID-Hash: 62OALGCVOEGUYD7RXHT727ZNJRON2FXQ X-MailFrom: toke@toke.dk X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: galene@lists.galene.org, Dave Taht X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.5 Precedence: list Subject: [Galene] Re: feature: two cameras for galene List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Gal=C3=A8ne_videoconferencing_server_discussion_list?= Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Juliusz Chroboczek writes: >> That's a shame. Is it just that the UI I've described is impossible, or >> can the browser only manage one "camera" at a time? > > The UI that you described is impossible to implement in current browsers. > > Allowing multiple cameras is trivial, we just need to design a UI that is > implementable and doesn't confuse users who don't need the feature. How about changing the existing share button so that when clicking it, you get a pop down (in the web UI) with a choice of "screen" or "second camera". This will make it readily accessible and not too confusing IMO; the drawback is that it adds an extra click for people who just want to share their screen... -Toke