Re: [Slim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-07.txt

I haven’t commented on this thread much, but I agree with Randall.

I am opposed to a protocol document saying anything about human interface.  The answering device may be an automaton, and there could be very good reasons to not tell the human which languages/media are not the least preferred.  

Designing good user interfaces is very hard, the participants on this list are not experts, and we should not offer advice on human factors in our documents.  It is sufficient to transport the information across the wire.

Brian

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> wrote:
> 
> Hi Randall, 
> Den 2017-03-01 kl. 02:08, skrev Randall Gellens:
>> Hi Gunnar, 
>> 
>> I'm starting a new message to cut out the huge amount of quoting. 
>> 
>> Your proposal is that text be added that advises the calling client to place an asterisk on the least-preferred language/media, and advises the answering client to indicate to the answering human which language/media is not the least preferred (did not have an asterisk in the offer), is that accurate? 
> Yes, with slight rewording to:
> "text that advises the offering client to place an asterisk on the least-preferred language/media indications, and advises the answering client to indicate to the answering human which language/media are not the least preferred (did not have an asterisk in the offer)"
> 
> The inclusion of the "indications" is just to assure that it is clear that it does not need to be just one indication that gets the asterisk .
> The last part sounds awkward, but matches technically what the lack of an asterisk means. I inherited the inverted logic for the asterisk from its already defined non-denial meaning. 
> If you are considering wording for the draft, I suggest that you straighten the logic to say "which language/media are most preferred (did not have an asterisk in the offer)"
> 
> It does also not need to be an "answering human" that gets this indication and makes use of it for guidance on how to answer the call. It can just as well be e.g. a multi-modal answering machine or some other application interacting with human language. I am not sure if "answering party" is more appropriate and can be considered including such automata.  
> 
> Thanks,
> Gunnar
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SLIM mailing list
> SLIM@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim