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

From: "Arnoud van Wijk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:29:22 +0200

Gregg,
Excellent points and could not be clearer imho.

Cheers

Arnoud

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: donderdag 24 juni 2004 19:32
To: 'Paul Kyzivat'; 'Guido Gybels'
Cc: [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

Hi all

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 is
available. 
4 - Voice with IM alone is not sufficient 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.  

Thanks 

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: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:31:41 -0500

Hi all

Thanks 

Gregg