search

w3c / mediacapture-extensions

Extensions to Media Capture and Streams by the WebRTC Working Group
https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-extensions/
Other
19 stars 14 forks source link

Eye gaze correction #56

Closed eehakkin closed 8 months ago

eehakkin commented 2 years ago

Eye gaze correction corrects the eye gaze then a user is looking at the display and not the camera while the camera is far from the point the user is looking at. This problem is widespread especially with large displays. For an example and background, see https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-extensions/issues/46.

Please see https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-extensions/pull/49#issue-1099641483 why a constrainable property is most suitable for the purpose.

Preview | Diff

eehakkin commented 1 year ago

@jan-ivar, @aboba: Is it OK to merge this PR?

eehakkin commented 1 year ago

@alvestrand: Could you merge this PR?

jan-ivar commented 1 year ago

From https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-extensions/issues/46#issuecomment-944153436:

  1. Okay, if your team has conducted user studies with evidence of people feeling "something wrong", we can put this on the back burner and re-visit later when users are more comfortable with this. I thought that if Microsoft and Apple had launched this feature on their native platform, there must be a user need. Do let us know if subsequent user studies suggest the perception of "uncanny valley" among majority of users has changed.

Sorry if I missed the answer to this in a more recent presentation, but has information surfaced that "users are more comfortable with this" now than in 2021?

Also, could you clarify why an application would need to control this feature? For blur, I think a valid argument was made that it was to avoid double-blurring, but that doesn't seem to apply here as much.

Isn't this something users can configure in their user agent or OS today and leave it on? Same question for face framing.

youennf commented 1 year ago

I think a valid argument was made that it was to avoid double-blurring

If face framing is on in the OS, the web page UI might not want to show this option (or might want to show it but unmodifiable).

youennf commented 1 year ago

We should fix the test example and probably file an issue about quality of implementation.

dontcallmedom-bot commented 1 year ago

This issue was mentioned in WEBRTCWG-2023-02-21 (Page 46)

jan-ivar commented 10 months ago

@eehakkin is there still interest in this one? After reviewing the editors feel this PR should have a note stating the feature lacks consensus if it is to merge ahead of a CfC.

riju commented 10 months ago

@eehakkin is there still interest in this one? After reviewing the editors feel this PR should have a note stating the feature lacks consensus if it is to merge ahead of a CfC.

Yes. We are still interested to continue with this feature.

I have put up an Explainer also. There are 2 modes of Eye Gaze Correction on Windows, so it also an option to have a enum as shown in the Explainer. If there is a consensus among chairs/editors on having a simple ON/OFF we can start with that also, as in this PR.

Happy to discuss here at TPAC how to move forward on this.

youennf commented 10 months ago

Editor's meeting: @riju could you rebase it and we will plan to merge it next week?

eehakkin commented 9 months ago

Editor's meeting: @riju could you rebase it and we will plan to merge it next week?

I rebased it.

riju commented 8 months ago

Gentle ping @jan-ivar @alvestrand

aboba commented 8 months ago

Should we start a Call for Consensus?

alvestrand commented 8 months ago

Yes.

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 5:02 PM Bernard Aboba @.***> wrote:

Should we start a Call for Consensus?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-extensions/pull/56#issuecomment-1791021390, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADVM7MZGCVAYC5BHW5R3YLYCO7Z3AVCNFSM5NB45VT2U5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TCNZZGEYDEMJTHEYA . You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.Message ID: @.***>