On 3/3/11 2:26 PM, Gunnar Hellström wrote: > Peter, > You have a good series of straightforward constructive proposals that I > think should be considered. > > I just want to comment your first statement: > "1. It seems to me that the real-time-text feature is very important to a > few small classes of users (mainly deaf people, but perhaps also to > certain users of specialized applications such as emergency services and > hotlines). To everyone else, it is merely a curiosity." > > I cannot believe this.
Expand your imagination. > I think real-time text is next hot development in > the IM world. IM is hot? I thought it was all about social networking these days. ;-) > I think the current way of doing IM sentence-wise is just a reminiscens > of old times technical limitations in bandwidth and computing power. And old-time users like me. > Have you never been irritated over the wiggeling pencil some IM systems > have, representing that the other party is typing. Nope. > Have you never > thought: "Please complete your sentence so I can see your thoughts on > this!" Nope. > Have you never started to type another question while the other > person was responding, just finding that you caused a bit of a mess in > what answers go with what questions. Nope. > With RTT all such reasons for stress and misunderstandings are gone. I'm stress-free. > People will discover that eventually and require RTT in all chats. IM users of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains! > I hope you start to believe me, but not change your mind on your > conclusion no2 by this pamphlet. No changes here. But please, this is not a marketing list, it's a technical list. I'm convinced that some people really need RTT, so I'm convinced that it's a worthwhile technical problem to solve. You don't need to convert the whole world to your way of thinking. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
