Subject: RE: [Simple] RE: [Sipping] RE: text/T140 and audio/t140was:[avt]Comments/questions on draft-ietf-av

From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:38:11 -0500

Sorry Paul I did not mean for it to apply to phones that had voice only.   

Good catch.

How about this form   (changed "voice" to "voice+text" in #3 and added "for
people who rely on text to communicate" to #4)

----

Good conversation.   Let me see if I can capture briefly where we all are.
(or might be) 

1 - IM is not a suitable substitute for interactive text. (char by char)
2 - IM does have its own uses where it is best
     NOTE:  There is a fear that some people don't understand 1 and 2 
     - but particularly #1 - so they / we worry whenever people use 
     talk about IM in same sentence with interactive text.
3 - There is no problem with a client that does both IM  and interactive
text - as long as interactive text is always available where voice+text is
available. 
4 - Voice with IM alone is not sufficient for people who must rely on text
and is the concern.  
5 - Since interactive text does not require hardware differences (just
software) from an IM phone / device - both IM and interactive text should be
built into devices from the start (if voice is supported) to provide
conversation capability in text.  (Interactive text is also good even where
voice is not supported - but would be beyond equivalence in that case). 

Rationale for #5.   Some might say that Voice + IM only would be good for
people who were not deaf. And people who are deaf could buy different phones
that are voice +IM + Interactive voice.  However, this would mean that
people who are deaf or hard of hearing or who have speech disabilities...
  - would have to buy special phones that did not represent the full range
of phones and features that everyone else had. (or companies would have to
create two versions of every phone/device).
  - would have to buy them from different locations than regular phones
(special programs)
  - would in general not be able to get same price plans and deals
  - would not be able to rent phones or use phones supplied with various
programs (unless they also carried a full inventory of both types of
phones).
  - and more.

Anyone disagree with any of these? 
Or are we all on the same page.
If differences - pls post and we can discuss where we differ and why.
Or where we can touch up these points.  

Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: "Arnoud van Wijk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:40:26 +0200

Hi Paul,
Is there a possibility that we can talk with Cisco and work out a strategy
for the IP phones? Viataal and RNID and Trace are quite willing to help
defining a good strategy that helps manufacturers to satify all users.
If there are enough IP phones in every price range that supports Interactive
Text, then I do not care whether EVERY phone has it. 

Not all phones support caller ID, but there are plenty phones who supports
it anyway.

I would indeed focus in 2 ways.

1. If an IP phone supports IM, it MUST also support Interactive text. There
is no excuse whichsoever, no argument to explain why interactive text is
then skipped!
2. For every price range, there MUST be IP phones with Interactive text
capabilities. Regardless they also support IM or not.

A voice only cheap IP phone to be used for your teenage daughter or in the
basement, etc. there is no need for text support there. If possible, great..

As long that user who need Interactive text can buy such phones at any
Wallmart or other shop. And that other users can just as easily buy an IP
phone with interactive text without having to rob a bank, or take a second
mortgage.

Ofcourse, I do want to see Interactive text in EVERY phone. I also want to
win the lottery jackpot. And marry a supermodel.

Greetz

Arnoud

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: donderdag 24 juni 2004 21:24
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: 'Guido Gybels'; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] RE: [Sipping] RE: text/T140 and
audio/t140was:[avt]Comments/questions on draft-ietf-av

Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> Hi all
> text

I'm with you so far

 >      - as long as interactive text is always available where voice is
> available. 

I think you are dreaming here. Black phones aren't going to support 
interactive text. Probably lots of phones aren't going to support 
interactive text.

> 4 - Voice with IM alone is not sufficient and is the concern.  

Its not sufficient for some uses. A lot of people would consider it 
sufficient, or even excessive.

Nevertheless, in the interest of promoting accessibility, it might be 
practical to argue that any device that supports both Voice *and* IM 
SHOULD also support real time text. (You can change that to MUST is you 
can get specific legislation passed that requires it.)

The degree of support for both might vary, but for a given device you 
might expect the degree of support for each to be comparable. (E.g. some 
devices might only receive IM & RTT, while others might support both 
send and receive.)

> voice is not supported - but would be beyond equivalence in that case). 

See above. If the phone doesn't support IM, it probably is a losing 
battle to get it to support real time text - it either doesn't have 
necessary UI features, or else it is trying to meet other constraints 
that conflict with doing this.

But there are lots of market pressures that are driving the support of 
IM in phones. If you can ride that wave to get support of RTT then I 
think you have won.

> Anyone disagree with any of these? 

I buy the entire rationale above when it is applied to devices that 
support Voice + IM rather than to all devices that support voice.

> Or where we can touch up these points.  

	Paul