Return-Path: X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1021412962C for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:50:42 -0800 (PST) X-Quarantine-ID: <27ZawF1jWKje> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version" X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27ZawF1jWKje for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:50:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96E0129621 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:50:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.201] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:40:05 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3710F834-0FB4-4D17-8E91-043624EF73E8@brianrosen.net> References: <148782279664.31054.8793649134696520241.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <49fd730e-6e90-1a49-eae8-80f8b1285a76@omnitor.se> <83152ba7-c3fb-25d8-f97d-59c7840cad56@omnitor.se> <4b36f347-955e-e2b9-12f2-f426d47d3d33@omnitor.se> <7f844aaa-17ce-2ab7-0602-a999a40235de@omnitor.se> <825fa638-b223-d716-6a3c-238903a37b92@omnitor.se> <3710F834-0FB4-4D17-8E91-043624EF73E8@brianrosen.net> X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:50:36 -0800 To: Brian Rosen , Gunnar =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hellstr=F6m?= From: Randall Gellens Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28 Archived-At: Cc: slim@ietf.org, "Phillips, Addison" , Natasha Rooney , Bernard Aboba Subject: Re: [Slim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-07.txt X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:50:42 -0000 At 8:34 AM -0500 3/1/17, Brian Rosen wrote: > I haven't commented on this thread much, but I agree with Randall. > > I am opposed to a protocol document saying=20 > anything about human interface. The answering=20 > device may be an automaton, and there could be=20 > very good reasons to not tell the human which=20 > languages/media are not the least preferred. > > Designing good user interfaces is very hard,=20 > the participants on this list are not experts,=20 > and we should not offer advice on human factors=20 > in our documents. It is sufficient to=20 > transport the information across the wire. Hi Brian, Gunnar's proposal is now a means of conveying=20 additional information that can be used by the UI=20 but does not discuss UI. However, I think this=20 is better done in a new Informational (or maybe=20 BCP) draft that offers advice to implementers and=20 can discuss the various use cases. >> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Gunnar Hellstr=F6m=20 >> <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>=20 >> 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=20 >>> advises the calling client to place an=20 >>> asterisk on the least-preferred=20 >>> language/media, and advises the answering=20 >>> client to indicate to the answering human=20 >>> which language/media is not the least=20 >>> preferred (did not have an asterisk in the=20 >>> offer), is that accurate? >>> >> Yes, with slight rewording to: >> "text that advises the offering client to=20 >> place an asterisk on the least-preferred=20 >> language/media indications, and advises the=20 >> answering client to indicate to the answering=20 >> human which language/media are not the least=20 >> preferred (did not have an asterisk in the=20 >> offer)" >> >> The inclusion of the "indications" is just to=20 >> assure that it is clear that it does not need=20 >> to be just one indication that gets the=20 >> asterisk . >> The last part sounds awkward, but matches=20 >> technically what the lack of an asterisk=20 >> means. I inherited the inverted logic for the=20 >> asterisk from its already defined non-denial=20 >> meaning. >> If you are considering wording for the draft,=20 >> I suggest that you straighten the logic to say=20 >> "which language/media are most preferred (did=20 >> not have an asterisk in the offer)" >> >> It does also not need to be an "answering=20 >> human" that gets this indication and makes use=20 >> of it for guidance on how to answer the call.=20 >> It can just as well be e.g. a multi-modal=20 >> answering machine or some other application=20 >> interacting with human language. I am not sure=20 >> if "answering party" is more appropriate and=20 >> can be considered including such automata. >> >> Thanks, >> Gunnar >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SLIM mailing list >> SLIM@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- There are two kinds of lawyers, those who know the law and those who know the judge.