Re: videomap

Juha Oinonen ([email protected])
Sat, 21 Jan 1995 20:36:31 +0100

>
> I think the "x,y" coordinate for imagemaps was a quick hack that should be
> upgraded; it's very limiting. Extending it to video would be even more
> limiting.
>
I can see your point, but still, it would on my opinion be better
to have some kind of method to implement a videomap, than to have
none at all. That way, people could gain experience about the
concept and ideas for further development.
I guess the current imagemap feature will not be removed when
more sophisticated methods are developed. Similarly,
the videomap could be upgraded later.

> Newer approaches involve having the document specify a polygon which
> constitute an anchor in an image, along with associated attributes (e.g.
> destination URL, REL or REV tags, that sort of disposition information.)
> That way, browsers can clearly indicate which part of the image is a valid link
> and which is not, where it goes, whether it should pop up in a separate window
> or replace what you're watching, etc.
>
> I'd suggest extending that to video by just adding a couple of attributes to
> the polygon (starting time and ending time, in frames or whatever.)

I guess one should consider giving _two_ polygons, one for time
t0 (start) and the other for t1 (stop) , and the actual hit area
would be linearly calculated from the two polygons. Using just one
polygon doesn't take into account the fact that the "camera"
usually moves.

Juha
>
>
>

Juha

--


        Juha Oinonen, [email protected]


	X.400: /GN=joinonen/OU1=cs/O=joensuu/ADMD=FUMAIL/C=FI