I'm developing a Web/AJAX application that replicates the majority of features available in a certain niche class of desktop apps (I'm avoiding detail here because I don't think it's relevant enough to plug myself. ;] ) with the exception of voicechat, which I can't implement without using a browser plugin. Voice is by no means ubiquitous in the industry, but the people who use it swear by it and refuse to do without.
A comment I receive fairly often is "This is nice, but when is it getting voicechat?" It's irksome, because if I was using a platform like Java or Flash the entire application would be leaner, quicker, and easier to troubleshoot.
But with HTML5, it seems like receiving the audio would be feasible. Google and I haven't found anything pertaining to recording and transmitting audio, and I'm guessing that part can't be done, but what of the future? If anyone knows about the nooks and crannies of HTML5 or even what's speculated for beyond the upcoming standard, I'd appreciate it.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video-conferencing-and-peer-to-peer-communication
From what I've read, the element described in this spec is what you're thinking of.
Related
I would like to implement video recording/playback/storage capability for my website. I'm done a bit of research, for HTML5 recording, there is RecordRTC which is based on WebRTC. For playback there's video.js. I want to be able to store them on s3 but I haven't figured out how.
1) Is this the best way to do it without paying for cloud based commercial ones such as ziggeo, nimbb and pipe?
2) are there any alternatives that i should look into?
3) how does storage work after recording using RecordRTC and uploading to s3? Do i need to do any sort of compression?
Any help would be great! Really appreciate it
Video recording is the future of all websites in our eyes - and by our I mean here at Ziggeo (full disclosure, I work at Ziggeo :) ).
In regards to recording there are many ways to do it and it is up to you to go with a specific one or implement all of them, so you could do it through Flash, WebRTC (https://webrtc.org/), or ORTC (https://ortc.org/).
We are currently offering you to record using WebRTC plus fallback with Flash and are working on implementing ORTC as well.
Now as mentioned above, there are many ways to do it and it is up to you, however it is up to your end users also since they might not be able to record over flash due to company policy or your website is on HTTP so you can not use WebRTC, etc.
With your own implementation you need to run the numbers and combine it all together (and work on keeping it up and running), while here at Ziggeo we do that for you and keep improving our SDKs and features.
Further more we also allow you to push the videos to S3 buckets, FTP, YouTube and Facebook - soon to DropBox as well.
So if you are like us, you will probably like to go down the road of do it yourself. If you however want to have time to work on your website, apps, and other things and just have the video, I do suggest using some service.
In regards to compression. It is good to mention that we do transcoding of all videos that are uploaded to our servers (You can see more here: https://ziggeo.com/features/transcoding). There is an original video that is kept and next to it the transcoded video (which can have watermark or some effects, etc. while it does not need to).
In general you want to 'standardize' the uploaded videos since different browsers will give you different video data containers and this would give you the upper hand so that it is easier to make adjustments to them later on for preview depending on the browser that is used.
To summarize:
1) - This depends on what kind of recording/playback and storage you need. If it is professional then using a service such as Ziggeo will help you focus on the important part of your service - like website design, functionality and similar, while if it is for fun and play you still have a free plan on Ziggeo, or you could get your sleeves up and do some codding :)
2) - I would personally look into WebRTC and ORTC if I was making implementation myself to see which one I would need more (or would be easier for me to implement). Once you find the one that you like, they usually offer some suggestions on their forums with what works best for them. (Be prepared however to need flash implementation at some point as well if it is business related setup)
3) It is best to standardize what you store in terms of resolution, video data containers and similar and often it is good to keep the original videos as well, so that you can always re-encode them if that is needed (which can happen in early stages of development).
I am trying to create a website where users can view and interact with room-furnishings in a 3D environment in a browser. Now, I do not wish to create anything from scratch, if it is possible to build upon existing open source efforts. So far, my research shows that:
The most established open source project I could build upon, that allows me to show 3D scenes on the browser and have users interact with them, uses Java3D for browser view, encapsulated in a java applet (sweethome3Dviewer).
Java 3D itself seems to be out of vogue, with most people recommending HTML5+WebGL (where unfortunately, I can't find any solutions that are as developed).
So here are my questions for this forum:
1) Are there any serious drawbacks of using a Java3D based approach?
I am talking of ANY drawbacks here, for example: "it is too slow"; "it is not stable"; "is limited by the number of concurrent users", etc.
2) What would you suggest I start with and build upon, if not the one based on Java3D?
Please note my preference for not re-inventing the wheel!
Yes, there is a serious drawback to using Java applets today: they are likely to simply not work at all.
The biggest problem is that the Java security system, which is intended to prevent programs like applets from accessing other parts of your computer (modifying files, running additional unsandboxed programs, etc.), has a history of security holes. Because of this history, there is a general consensus that permitting Java applets is simply not an acceptable security policy for the current day. Therefore, many browsers omit the Java plug-in or disable it by default.
And there are also browsers which simply have never had a Java browser plug-in at all, such as those on Android and iOS devices. Besides the security risk, there is also the issue that Java is “heavyweight” as web content goes — it can be seen as a waste of limited resources, for portable devices.
Thus, using Java applets is not a good choice: your applet will never work for many users, and those it does work for are taking an unnecessary security risk.
WebGL, on the other hand, is “just” another JavaScript-based API, which only does graphics, not lots of other things that have to be turned off by a “security manager” element. There are risks inherent to WebGL (GPU drivers are not the most security-minded thing out there) but in the current state of things it's unlikely that WebGL will be simply shut off rather than being fixed, if a problem is found.
Some people have asked similar questions about protecting HTML5 apps and protecting freemium apps, but not both together. I'm asking this separately because I have the impression (whether right or wrong) that HTML5 is particularly insecure vs native.
I'm working on an embedded HTML5 app I want to monetize using the freemium model, but I'm worried about how to keep its virtual currency and scoring variables from being too easily messed with by the end user, as I fear this could negatively impact revenue if some hacker (no offense intended by the term) were to create a YouTube video or blog posting about an exploit. I think it is pretty unlikely early on for this to happen, but I think vulnerability will matter more with popularity. I'm also worried about with which someone can copy an app.
I though realize both are possible inherently with an app installed on the device.
My questions are:
How easy is it, in your opinion or experience, to mess with an
unobfuscated embedded (not browser dependent) HTML5 app and its Javascript vs a native app with core files based on Java or Objective-C data?/How well does obfuscation work on HTML5 apps vs native obfuscated
apps in terms of data protection?
How difficult is it to obfuscate an HTML5 app vs using something like Proguard on regular Android apps?
Does obfuscation cause HTML5 to noticeably slow down for normal users?
Lastly, do you think it's practical to have an HTML5 app with
freemium features? Or do you personally think it is too vulnerable?
What I'm basically trying to figure out with them is whether HTML5 is particularly vulnerable or hard to protect, at least when compared to protecting native apps. If an obfuscated HTML5 app is as secure or insecure as a regular app, then I guess I'm okay with it.
The only way to prevent cheating (and unlocking freemium items is a kind of cheating) is to move all the relevant game logic to the server. Forget about obfuscation. When it's executed on the clients machine, it's under the control of the user. Obfuscation can slow the user down, but it can't stop someone who is determined to hack it. This doesn't just apply to javascript, it applies to every game client, no matter what programming language it is written in.
A general rule of designing cheat-proof multiplayer games is to never trust the client and do all calculations which are relevant for gameplay on the server.
In my opinion it is better to obfuscate AND never trust the client.
Not only that, I would even compress the obfuscated code and I would add an obfuscated decompressor in the client and/or the server.
The technique is viable and it is what professional companies are using all over the web.
Now, to answer your questions:
It's not easy to mess with a correctly obfuscated code (something
which will require you to compress/crypt even numbers).Professional
hackers won't mess with your code "for sport" unless they're given
money to do so and even in that case, they'll have a hard time doing
it (that's why I don't believe in the "forget about obfuscation" way
of thinking).
Obfuscation works really well in terms of data protection.Your code
becomes unreadable and, to some extent, it can be seen as a
compression algorithm thus it reduces file size and loading times.
Obfuscation is easy if you rely on professional tools which can
obfuscate, for example, JS, html5, css and php all together. It's
harder only if you have to develop such tools.But there exists
open-source software too in the field.
It slows down "normal users" definitely, they feel lost in front of
you code.
It's practical to have an HTML5 app with freemium features but it
all depends on your implementation of such options.
If done correctly as stated above, it's less vulnerable but,
personally, I don't like this business model.
My company writes software that installs on client machines to perform point-of-sale transactions. The software interfaces with a variety of external peripherals (receipt printers, bar code scanners, credit-card readers, etc). We do this with a WinForms app that we created in Visual Studio using the Microsoft OPOS library, which in turn communicates with our cloud server.
There are obvious inefficiencies in this model, primarily with updates. I'm researching other ways to communicate with these peripherals over the web, preferably via web browser. So far as I can tell, Java is one of the only technologies out there that can do what we're looking for (via applet), and I assume Adobe Flash can as well (via the Air platform). These are viable, but not preferable because we want to run our software on web-enabled mobile devices.
Does anybody have suggestions for other ways to communicate with external peripherals over the web?
UPDATE (Jan 16th, 2019): The Credential Management API has been announced. It's currently only supported on Chrome and Opera but it's looking promising. Google Developers wrote an article elaborating on the spec.
UPDATE (Dec 28th, 2016): Another couple years gone, and another update. This one will be more focused on two new developments than anything else. See the new "WebUSB & Web BlueTooth" section under "Full Device API". But the answer remains the same.
UPDATE (Nov 3rd, 2014): It's been just over two years since the original post was made, but the answer remains mostly the same for now. We are, however, closer to your original goal in several areas.
ORIGINAL ANSWER:
There would be a number of ways to go about this.
Background
The HTML5 specification has entered into the "Recommendation" state. This means that HTML5 is pretty much set for what it looks like. However, I will be using HTML5 in the same way that every marketing person in the world has decided is best. That is, I will not be talking about HTML. Well, I will, in so far as you will utilize it from an HTML page, but not really. What I'll actually be discussing is JavaScript (JS) and that's a horse of a different color. But for all intents and purposes, we're putting it all under the same heading as HTML5, which has been decided to mean "shiny and new" now.
Also, the items which I am discussing will vary in support. Some are very browser dependent projects (like Chromium specific implementations), and some are more standards driven projects that may not have browsers implementing or experimenting with them yet. I'll try to distinguish between the two as I go along.
Full Device API
Status: Incoming, but not ready
Being able to access devices from the browser is making slow but steady progress. Right now, many modern browsers have access to some of the more common devices like the camera or gamepads, but they are all high level APIs. Browser vendors, the standards groups, and lots of companies involved with the web are all trying to make webapps just as powerful as your local applications.
But the APIs you are looking for are still in progress and a ways off. For your particular case, and for the more general case of connecting your webapp to most devices, we're still a few years away from something we can use. If you want to see what awesome things are coming up in that field, here are just a select few items that may help you directly:
Web Near Field Communication (NFC) API
This one unfortunately may be dead in the water for now. But it looks like originally some folks at the W3C (mostly Intel it looks like) were looking at adding a NFC API to the web.
Media Capture Streams
The WebRTC group is working on programmatic access to media streams like the camera which would allow to integrate things like barcode scanning or other features. This has reached CR status and is available in browsers, but is less helpful on its own.
Web Bluetooth
If you had bluetooth capable tools, this API would help you connect with them from computers and devices that were able to listen and connect. The primary driver for this at the moment seems like it is the Chrome team, including an experimental implementation, but I wouldn't consider it anywhere ready to use yet (See "WebUSB & Web BlueTooth" section).
WebUSB
This would allow full access to low level USB information including listing devices and interacting with them. Same as Web BlueTooth, this seems to be current Chrome pet project, but I also wouldn't rely on it (See "WebUSB & Web BlueTooth" section).
Network Service Discovery
If you have other devices or items on the network which broadcast and use HTTP, this API would allow you to discover and interact with these services. No browser implementation, but it is in a working draft for the W3C.
Originally, Mozilla was pushing a number of these forward because of Boot2Gecko (or Firefox OS). However, with that project officially cancelled, we aren't seeing much progress from them in these areas now.
Members of the Chrome team, however, seem to have decided to dive in and start not only working towards these, but putting them live in browsers. Which leads us to...
WebUSB & Web BlueTooth
Like sausages, it's better to not know how Web Standards are made
-Abraham Lincoln (probably)
There's been a little bit of buzz in this area as it looks like the Chrome team snuck in these as experimental features and developed their own specification for it. Which is great! Just maybe not in the way that you were hoping for.
Each browser vendor and W3C contributor group has their own style and makes contributions towards the specs in their own way. The result is usually a fairly decent specification that the browsers have agreed upon. But getting from nothing to something is... messy. Real messy. And is quite a process a lot of times. It doesn't always result in a good spec (yeah, I'm talking about you Florian compromise...) but even when it does, it takes a while.
However, It seems like Google developed this version of the spec all on their own. And, in my experience, Google's approach to the specs is always a little... well... setting my personal opinions aside we'll say "gung-ho". They tend to just dive right into the deep end. And that seems to be what they've done here.
I highly doubt these specs or implementations will look anything like this when they become standards. And there's nothing wrong with that. That's part of the process. But I wouldn't go relying on this implementation or developing any code or products against it. This is an unprecedented feature on the web and all the browser vendors are gonna want a big say in this.
That said, this is actually good. One of the things Google often does (for better or worse) with situations like this is forces the conversation and it can push things along. And having a feature shipped in the browser, even an experimental feature, can turn up the heat on the demand for it. So we may see more progress in this area soon.
PhoneGap Apache Cordova. You know, for your phone
Status: Not fully featured and phone only
Apache Cordova, previously Adobe PhoneGap, is a way to write your program in HTML, CSS, and JS that allows you to access lower level functionality on things like phones, and compile across devices. This would be a way to implement your program, but it would be a phone application, not necessarily a desktop one. An option to consider, and something I figured I would mention.
Cordova implements a few of the above features already, but doesn't have some of the more powerful ones like NFC or BlueTooth.
The Native-App solution (for Windows 8)
Status: Possible, but OS specific and desktop app
Windows 8 offers the ability to build applications in HTML and JS. This would allow you to easily access lower level functionality on the OS via their API. From the looks of it, it is pretty extensive and you can do a lot. You mentioned cross OS support, however, and this obviously limits you to one OS.
It's so Flash-y!
Status: Dying/Dead, not possible as a web app
Flash won't have direct access to the system through the web. You could create an AIR application, but that will sort of defeat the purpose of having it web based. In addition, Flash support on mobile, and on the web it would seem, is on the decline.
NodeJS
Status: Can be a bit of a pain and only possible as a desktop app
NodeJS and JS applications have sort of been a hot topic the last couple years. I didn't discuss it in my original post because I felt it wasn't quite there yet. However, things have progressed and it is much closer to being ready for this sort of thing, and has the support and power of a growing user base. That said, for your particular case, I wouldn't recommend using it. It would have to be local on the users machine, and because of how NodeJS (and similar engines) are at the moment, it would require a lot of extra configuration and setup that would complicate things a bit.
So you could build an app using HTML, CSS and JS with NodeJS or similar engines and have low level access to what you need, but it has to be local, and it would take more work than I'm sure you want to do every time you'd like to install it for a customer.
... Now where was I?
So where does that leave us? Well, simple: if you want a single language/set of code as your code base, HTML/CSS/JS aren't a great option... yet. But they could be some day. For now, your options are limited to what you feel is best for your customer. Java is a stable option you listed, but obviously comes with its own drawbacks. As the web develops, I think we'll see a lot of really cool things coming out of the new functionality, but we've got a ways to go still.
More reading:
Brian.IO: Beyond HTML5
HTML5 Apps on Windows 8
Wikipedia list of projects built using JS
This is possible, but it would have to be done indirectly. In theory, you could write a socket-server in a low level language, which gets I/O, and sends the I/O through the socket (relaying, I guess). HTML5 uses WebSockets, or some equivalent to communicate with this socket-server.
Now it can be achieved with WebUSB API.
It is available in Chrome since version 54.
It is a W3C editor's draft so we can expect (hope) that it will be adopted by other browser vendors...
I've been thinking about this a lot lately... have a POS app mostly written in VB6, considering what to do next. HTML5 is an option and I was thinking I'd use VSPE to get the serial stuff into the JS.
http://www.eterlogic.com/Products.VSPE.html
Love this product! Works very well for getting serial traffic where you need it, so I think it would work well, at least as a proof-of-concept to get you going. You'll want to use a combination of "connector" types along with the "tcpclient" and "tcpserver".
Just for the record, a method that works well in 2016 (since chrome 26), but is to be withdrawn over the next 2 years is to deploy your html5 as a chrome app and use chrome.usb (or chrome.serial or chrome.bluetooth).
I am currently using chrome.usb and planning to migrate to a web app using WebUSB API (see Supersharp's answer), which I hope will be adopted by the time Google discontinue chrome apps 🤞.
I was a big fan of AIM and live chat/buddy lists back in the day. With the rise of HTML5 and its use becoming more common in modern browsers, I'd like to develop an HTML5 messaging system.
What technologies do I have to look up? At the start, I won't care about the design (CSS), just functionality.
I'll most likely have a standard registration and store users in a MySQL Database.
Additionally, "friends" will also easily be stored in a database, populating a user's buddy list based on which user ID's he/she has marked as "friend".
The actual server and client connectivity is what most interests me. Is this technology available for HTML5 yet? Point me in the right direction and I'll be good to go!
For the chat, you would probably like to look in to Websockets (as you talk about HTML5).
There are also examples like this where NodeJS is used. To use node, you would have to run a node-server. For examples and more info: nodejs.org
I think the websockets API will be your first port of call for a messaging app in HTML5. You'll be wanting the server to notify the client rather than the client poll or rely on callbacks and this would be the start i think.
However, I don't think this is very well supported in even the most modern browser. In fact i believe firefox and opera have pulled support because of security concerns.
I haven't done any work in this myself but just though it looked interesting stuff. So I guess I just wish you luck with your dev. Exciting cutting edge stuff I think.