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

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:24:09 -0400

Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> 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

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.)

> 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). 

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.

> 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? 

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 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.  

	Paul

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