4 ms·
Actually, not really. It's all HTML 5 video elements on the page, so this is all you need: .mirrored { transform: scaleX(-1); } And you can make a button
by timdorr 14y ago
Actually, not really. It's all HTML 5 video elements on the page, so this is all you need:
.mirrored { transform: scaleX(-1); }
And you can make a button to add/remove that class as needed.
However, I do hope the implementations are consistent as to which way it flips the video.
- bajsejohannes 14y agoChanging it is easy. Adding options is an easy way to avoid choices. But Jabbles' point still remains: It's a hard choice to make.
- untog 14y agoI don't think it's a hard choice for the browser to make- send the data as it is captured by the camera. How that is displayed is something else, but as timdorr demonstrates, it's not difficult to toggle.
- criley 14y agoIt's a hard choice for the human who has to pick one or the other and justify that decision.
- untog 14y agoIn what way? The developer should have no problem justifying the decision. "It's what the camera sensor sees". I absolutely understand the application in webchat and why you would want it to be mirrored at a page level, but I'm at a loss to understand why the browser implementation would try to reflect that.
- wubbfindel 14y ago"reflect" tsk boom!
- robotmay 14y agoI agree that it's a hard choice; I had to make this exact choice last week when working on a video chat service. Possibly because of the nature of the service (tutoring/teaching) it felt incredibly unnatural to see a non-mirrored image of myself. I tried it out both ways and it really did feel quite peculiar, and I had a hard time figuring out my own movements (kinda like trying to shave using two mirrors).
- mweibel 14y agoThe last time I tried this it also flipped the controls. Is this still the case?