On Mar 3, 2011, at 14:26 , 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. I think real-time text is next hot development in the > IM world. > > I think the current way of doing IM sentence-wise is just a reminiscens of > old times technical limitations in bandwidth and computing power. > > Have you never been irritated over the wiggeling pencil some IM systems have, > representing that the other party is typing. Have you never thought: "Please > complete your sentence so I can see your thoughts on this!" 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. > > With RTT all such reasons for stress and misunderstandings are gone. People > will discover that eventually and require RTT in all chats. > > I hope you start to believe me, but not change your mind on your conclusion > no2 by this pamphlet. >
I disagree RTT is the "next hot development". I don't care for this technology, but accept and appreciate that it is important to enough other individuals to warrant discussion and ratification of an officially accepted approach. That will need to be enough for you, because you're not going to convince everyone. Please save the marketing for use elsewhere, and focus on the technical discussion. As has been said a number of times, the council was not opposed to what it's solving but how it's solving it. - m&m
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
