Re: [v6ops] Apple and IPv6, a few clarifications - ND proxy for bridging hotspots

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 26/06/2015 08:48, Mark ZZZ Smith a écrit :
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>
> *To:* Gert Doering <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Sent:* Friday, 26 June 2015, 5:24
> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] Apple and IPv6, a few clarifications - ND proxy
> for bridging hotspots
>
>
>  > For the typical driver who is already challenged pairing his mobile via
>  > BT with his car's handsfree?  No go.  Do one thing, do it well, and NEVER
>  > ask a car owner (or any normal Internet user) about technical decisions.
>
> We can agree to disagree. IMHO, this should be as simple as two settings.
>
> One on the phone: Provide Internet Access to Car: ON/OFF
>
> One in the car: Get internet access from: CAR <-> PHONE
>
>
> As to the typical driver being challenged pairing his mobile, frankly,
> I’m challenged
> with that on many occasions, not because I don’t know how to do it and
> not because
> I don’t understand what is involved or can’t follow directions, but
> because BlueTooth
> pairing implementation on most cars and most devices is a steaming pile
> of poorly
> written and even less well tested code that is fragile, buggy, and
> unreliable.
>
> Assuming that the underlying connectivity code works, the above two settings
> should not be difficult to implement correctly. They are far less
> complex than
> Bluetooth.
>
>
>
> / I think another thing to remember is that "enablement" can imply a
> default. For example, if my car comes with a SIM slot, and I choose to
> put one on in it, then I've implicitly chosen that the car should by
> default use the connectivity provided by its own 3/4G connectivity. I'm
> also have likely to have chosen the particular SIM and its associated
> usage plan based on my expected usage of the Internet by and possibly in
> the car. If the car also has a Wifi hotspot in it, I'll likely associate
> my phone with it once, so that from then on my phone will automatically
> use the car's connectivity every time I get in it, without any
> intervention on my part at all. That would be much more convenient than
> having to switch on and off hotspot support on my phone each and every
> time I get in the car - and it is likely people will sometimes forget,
> and then try to do that while they're driving, which will be as or more
> dangerous than sending text messages while driving.
>
> / Having choice can be good, but you want to try to minimise both the
> amount of choices and how often people have to make them - too much
> choice can lead to paralysis, such that making no choice becomes the
> safest "choice".  I think when it comes to usability, predictable and
> expected defaults, and matching peoples' existing conceptual and mental
> models are much better. The book "The Design of Every Day Things" is an
> excellent book on making things easier to use.

I agree having choice is good.  Some cars already feature a 3-option 
menu where the car should get its Internet from.  That is good, but it 
is bad because the driver has to concentrate on it.

So some people came up with automating that choice.  That's not in the 
cars but maybe in the future.

The problem is that future will be very remote because there are so many 
choices of connectivity for the car, for the passengers.  Doesnt look 
simple to list all the choices, and to automate them.

And, worse, the protocols are not made to work in that dynamic way.

Alex

>
> / Regards,
> / Mark.
>
>
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>