player VS RVS_BlueThoth

vidstack is very light on technical details but starts with a concise intro and a screenshot, as well as relevant links: https://github.com/vidstack/player

payload is well-structured in general: https://github.com/payloadcms/payload

nanostores starts out with an intro and telling code examples, followed by lots of technical details: https://github.com/nanostores/nanostores

Hey everyone!

The motivation for this started with some initial exploration of how native captions are inconcistent and extremely limited with respect to positioning + styling across browsers. In addtion, existing captions work was glued inside player libs and all open-source parsers were ancient (e.g., mozilla/vtt)!

I wanted to modernize it all with newer web APIs such as `fetch` and `ReadableStream` and extend support out to multiple captions formats. I also noticed that a lot of popular players on the web in recent years started adding caption customization options. Turns out accessible captions can be legally enforced!

Do note that accessible captions not only includes sync/timing, but also an adequate set of controls to customize the style of the captions, ensuring they're readable for everyone. You can see an example of this on YouTube when you go to the captions and click customize.

It just seemed silly that probably every single company is internally building this type of lib which is insanely hard to get right. I built this to serve our accessiblity goals at Vidstack[1] where we're working on enabling you to build production-ready player quickly.

It took me about two weeks to build this and honestly there's still a lot of areas that need work but it's a great start. I hope you find it useful. You'll find a lot more helpful information in the repo.

I'll also leave you with this YouTube video where Dan Sparacio beautifully explains the complexities of building accessible media captions on the web at Paramount [2]. This is one of my favourite Demuxed talks. In there case, acessible enough to meet FCC guidelines _Highly_ recommend checking it out to learn more!

[1]: https://github.com/vidstack/player

I generally have a “What Problem Does This Solve?” section in my READMEs.

https://github.com/LittleGreenViper/LGV_TZ_Lookup#what-probl...

https://github.com/LittleGreenViper/LGV_MeetingServer#what-p...

https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_Spinner#what-probl...

https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_BlueThoth#what-pro...

https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_PersistentPrefs#wh...

etc.

> I had one developer take 6 months to build a (relatively simple) top nav for a web app. This shouldn't have taken more than 1-2 weeks, even with a careful eye for detail.

Oh, you mean "bikeshedding."

Here's an example of the difference between basic quality, and High Quality:

If you look at most of the repos for SPM modules in my portfolio[0], you'll see that the vast majority have test harnesses. I prefer using test harnesses[1].

These test harnesses tend to be pretty damn robust apps. Many are "ready for app store" robust. A lot of folks would just publish them, "as is." I've been writing apps for a very long time. I'm fairly good at this.

I can write a fairly good test harness, with full app capabilities, in less than a day. If I take the time to localize it, maybe add a day or so.

Here's an example of some test harnesses[2]. Note that there are four of them. These represent the four different target environments for Apple (iOS/iPadOS, WatchOS, TVOS, and MacOS). I'll probably need to fork iOS and iPadOS, in the future, but we're not there, yet. A single codebase is still good for both.

They test a Bluetooth framework[3].

It probably took me around a week or so, to write each one. They are pretty damn good. I think they are all "App Store ready."

I decided to actually go ahead, and create a set of apps, based on these[4], [5], [6].

I spent well over a month, on each, after merging over the test harness codebases, to make them ready for the App Store. Lots of UX testing, removing code that only applied to testing, and adding "friendlier" user interface.

I'm working on an app that I started about a year ago. Actually, I started it over ten years ago, if you include the two servers that I wrote, upon which it depends.

One of the reasons that it has taken so long, is that I have truncated months of work, and tossed them in the garbage, because they were not the proper way to go. I have an "evolutionary design" process[7], that means this can happen. I plan for it. I've probably shitcanned three months' of work.

Another thing that I do, is have an "always beta" approach to Quality. I maintain the product at "incomplete, but ship Quality" status for as much of the project as possible. In fact, I've been sharing it with the team, using TestFlight, since Oct 3, 2020 at 7:47 AM (I got that from the TestFlight metadata).

That means that the app has been stable and robust enough for user testing, and approval for basic App Store release (TestFlight External Testing is a more relaxed standard, but try pushing out a crasher, and see how far that goes).

I add localization support, accessibility, Dark Mode support, leak testing, etc., at every turn. It's very useful, because I can solicit immediate feedback from non-tech team members. It also means that the "basics" for App Store release are constantly being tested and validated.

Even more useful, if we want to ask for money, it's dam easy. We just loop the person we're begging from, into the TestFlight External Tester pool, and they can run the app without a Marketing chaperone, or sacrifices to the demo gods. We can also get valuable feedback from them.

It's really, really nice, and it has been, for many months.

I feel like we are now at a "starting point." Even though it has been a fully-functioning, release-ready app for the last couple of months, it need the "MVP treatment," where the testing pool is expanded, and we start applying it to "in the wild" scenarios.

Lots of companies use their customers as guinea pigs for the first several releases; usually by shoving baling-wire-and-duct-tape junk down their throats (and making them pay for it), before hitting their stride. It's a deliberate strategy. Some months ago, I read a post, here by a founder, declaring that "if you don't get physically sick at the quality of the code in your MVP, then you are spending too much time on the code quality."

Basically, deliberately write garbage, and force it on your users.

One of the reasons that I took on this project, was the founder is a friend of mine. He is running it as an NPO (501c3), and putting his own money into it. He doesn't really have much of it, to begin with. Also, more alarmingly, he didn't actually have a particularly good idea of what, exactly, he wanted the app to be. That's a recipe for disaster.

He asked me to help him vet some development shops he was approaching, to realize his vision.

It was eye-opening. He got a number of ridiculous quotes. I know what is necessary for this type of project (not small). For example, when one said that they'll deliver a full multi-server, multi-client app for MVP in three months (firm), upon getting a vague, hand-wavy requirements spec, it was hard for me to keep a straight face.

After a few of these, I just got disgusted, and said "Screw this. I'll do it." I've been developing it for free, as a native iOS/iPadOS app.

He has to pinch himself.

[0] https://stackoverflow.com/story/chrismarshall

[1] https://littlegreenviper.com/miscellany/testing-harness-vs-u...

[2] https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_BlueThoth/tree/mas...

[3] https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_BlueThoth

[4] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blue-van-clef-for-mobile/id151... (iOS -Includes Watch app)

[5] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blue-van-clef/id1529005127 (Mac)

[6] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blue-van-clef-for-tv/id1529181... (TV)

[7] https://littlegreenviper.com/miscellany/evolutionary-design-...