Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TIL: You can access a user’s camera with just HTML

austingil.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 240 posts

Re: TIL: You can access a user’s camera with just HTML

#111

Post by mminer237 »

unknownaccount wrote: post #91
totetsu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you're behind a firewall with some filtering, and it doesn't like the domain name or something? browsers treat '.dev' domains a bit more strictly than the norm, so the browser doesn't like the redirect?? that's just my guess sorry.

Can you elaborate on how browsers treat .dev differently? its the first im hearing of this and it sounds interesting, thx.

The entire TLD is on the HSTS preload list, so .dev domains are only accessible via HTTPS. You can't use them unencrypted.

Re: TIL: You can access a user’s camera with just HTML

#112

Post by bonestamp2 »

osrec wrote: post #77
Waterluvian wrote: post #27

A lot of totally valid opinions out there about this, but I personally _love_ how the browser is becoming a very well-featured sandbox for shipping applications. For personal fun and learning, I'm making a complete 2D video game in ideally less than 1MB. It has 60fps graphics, full spatial audio, and gamepad support, all because the browser has a lot of these APIs that didn't exist when I was starting out my career.…

Thanks for saying this, as I know a lot of people on HN have very negative feelings towards this trend. Personally, I feel the browser is a great way to stop reinventing the wheel, and the APIs abstract away a lot of the heavy lifting. They pretty much get you 80% of the way there, and the last 20% is where you can really add the stamp of "uniqueness" to your implementation. The fact that the browser is also heavily…

If I understand you comment correctly, WebAssembly is on a path to give you that web based container that can be as powerful as your computer allows while still being sandboxed in the browser.

Re: TIL: You can access a user’s camera with just HTML

#113

Post by MR4D »

ryandrake wrote: post #99
osrec wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for saying this, as I know a lot of people on HN have very negative feelings towards this trend. Personally, I feel the browser is a great way to stop reinventing the wheel, and the APIs abstract away a lot of the heavy lifting. They pretty much get you 80% of the way there, and the last 20% is where you can really add the stamp of "uniqueness" to your implementation. The fact that the browser is also heavily…

It just feels like every time software developers can't (or won't) build things cross-platform, users end up with bigger and bloatier solutions and poorer experiences. First, it was cross-platform UI toolkits and OS abstractions like Qt (require users to use a big, "lowest common denominator compromise" library ) Then, it was web apps (require users to provide a browser) Then, it was Electron and friends (ship the wh…

> Ship an entire physical PC to the user pre-loaded with the application?

Ironically, that’s essentially what IBM did with mainframes.

Another example of what’s old is new again.

Re: TIL: You can access a user’s camera with just HTML

#115

Post by amalcon »

notatoad wrote: post #100
amalcon wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recognize that this kind of thing is useful to the developer, of course, and we've gotten a lot of neat things this way. My worry is basically that the absent functionality is the best thing about the web as a user. Take the notification API: One of the nice things about web pages and apps is that they stop bothering me once I close them; not so if I accidentally permit notifications! Fortunately I can turn that wh…

this seems like a pretty silly criticism - you have a feature that is both gated behind a per-site permission prompt and that has an option to globally turn it off, and you're still grumpy that it exists? if you don't like it turn it off. arguing that things shouldn't exist just because you choose not to use them is pretty selfish.

I mean... it does exist now, and I don't advocate taking it out since people have probably come to rely on it for some reason. Defaults matter, though, and I suspect[0] that a minority want this default.

[0]- With only anecdotes supporting my suspicion; I haven't done a rigorous study.

Re: TIL: You can access a user’s camera with just HTML

#117

Post by codethief »

naillo wrote: post #62
cyral wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And theres a LOT more APIs than people realize: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API Some interesting ones: - Screen recording/capture - Battery status - Barcode Detection - Bluetooth - Sensors (e.g. Accelerometer) - Wake/screen lock - Color picker - Vibration - MIDI - USB - Contacts picker - Presentation (AirPlay, Chromecast) - Virtual reality

Old enough to remember when the accelerometer didn't require permission to access.

Me too but I'm glad it does now and I don't have fear (web) apps that exploit the accelerometer as microphone.

Re: TIL: You can access a user’s camera with just HTML

#118

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

amalcon wrote: post #96
johnfn wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, this seems like a good compromise to me. Some apps (calendar) would be absolutely crippled without them. For everything else, I've just never turned them on in the first place. > I wish there were a permission pop-up before playing sound at all The browser can't actually play sound unless 1) it's triggered as the result of a user action (such as a mouse click) or 2) if you've often listened to sound on…

My answer to this is that the calendar just does not need to be a web app. Weakening a primary advantage of everything else on the web just so that my calendar can be a web app seems like a poor trade-off. Re: sound, "Triggered as the result of a user action" is not a high enough bar.

> the calendar just does not need to be a web app

And the chat app, and the email app, and the social media app (other opinions about social media notwithstanding). I think each of these things have their own legitimate use for notifications.

I guess it's the point of "weakening a primary advantage". I don't see how it's weakened (or rather, I don't see how it's a problem) when the notifications are on a per site permission. Especially so when the notifications can be turned off completely per browser.

> Re: sound, "Triggered as the result of a user action" is not a high enough bar.

I'm with you on this. Although it took until this thread for me to realize that sound at all should be a permission.

Re: TIL: You can access a user’s camera with just HTML

#119

Post by codethief »

totetsu wrote: post #9

This is a site that shows the camera feed full screen and inverts in with css https://nega.radioac.dev/ I hacked it together in half an hour to give people a way to look at the uninverted version of my inverted analogue photos with their phones at exhibitions. most people were more excited to play with it on their phone than by the photos I took days making. :'( [edit oops this javascript ]

I'm getting a blank screen on Firefox for Android :(
Post reply on HN