Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan)

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Fri, 31 May 2013 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C60321F8EAE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2013 14:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MW9oPjVBaRCc for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2013 14:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CEB621F8FEB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2013 14:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.72]) by qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ib951l0031ZXKqc57lF8JK; Fri, 31 May 2013 21:15:08 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ilF71l01S3ZTu2S3hlF8Qd; Fri, 31 May 2013 21:15:08 +0000
Message-ID: <51A912DB.5010104@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 17:15:07 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <51A7BEBE.2040302@omnitor.se> <CALiegfk6XchF4U1Orpd6oJsydz-VGtBQ=CwaWrPa_KjsaQynYQ@mail.gmail.com> <51A7CD81.2060805@gmail.com> <51A835D7.9060603@omnitor.se> <51A907C2.6040801@matthew.at>
In-Reply-To: <51A907C2.6040801@matthew.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1370034908; bh=n/MDcWUUKuYpgCfV1Ix8LdEerMBqWknHAAo6yrNj9S8=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=pkJvsormOPefzoKtalYvpa+Crd+O4bM72VUG8UbXPeHw3a3HVF+kG6fxMtJp0AbUB A40ARPqkTulMqNxZo0KbtqJSzStM2ekYCrp5s35sKiaqXvveyvV14ZJdNtIYjqDpQ7 KsiY//DiXf+N8iOjQ+c96OOGj4AnJ1gx5rb5fNIhuEZaa4YO5+QQdW5AqqWEz3mC61 VdhIC5Pr6nidiFm3xKRzjAu7H6yvf/+MzNlYovKFYzy0CJwSVL78X+xlOL5iF8iGun XDF/ieIHZNannpJvzF3BPSGM+nAwcOjiAjmFS3psP9bEjJ68B/e1dnE7mq0wJ2w9HC DKcAtBvQADlBg==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 21:15:16 -0000

I've been through this conversation before.
There are no winners. Different strokes for different folks.

IMO the texting UI should be as independent as possible of this 
stylistic difference, and the actual protocol. The session establishment 
should sort out the "best" compromise between the desires and 
capabilities of the two ends.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 5/31/13 4:27 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 5/30/2013 10:32 PM, Gunnar Hellstrom wrote:
>>  I do not understand why modern communication users accept to see a
>> chat state indication of "composing" instead of really seeing what
>> text is composed.
>
> Perhaps because you haven't done user studies of SMS-style
> compose-and-send vs. real-time text.
>
> I suggest you do that, and then you'll understand the several reasons
> why most users (perhaps interestingly, excluding those users who are
> hearing-impaired) prefer the former.
>
>> With real-time text you get rid of the frustration that "composing"
>> creates.
>
> And you add the sender's frustration of not being able to edit and
> rethink their message before sending it, and the expectation on both the
> sender and the receiver that they remain present for the duration of the
> conversation rather than using it as a completely asynchronous messaging
> modality, to reply when convenient. [this is just a subset of what the
> user studies show, but touches a couple of the most common points]
>
> Matthew Kaufman
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>