[rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan)

Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Fri, 31 May 2013 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew@matthew.at>
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 F3AEC21F90CD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.43
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745]
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 DURoq5UtJ1WS for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from where.matthew.at (where.matthew.at [198.202.199.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE46E21F8D90 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.155.2] (unknown [10.10.155.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by where.matthew.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB5D1480FA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51A907C2.6040801@matthew.at>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 13:27:46 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; 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>
In-Reply-To: <51A835D7.9060603@omnitor.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [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 20:27:51 -0000

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