Subject: RE: [Sipping] Text support in SIP phones

From: "Guido Gybels" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:56:37 +0100

Chris,

<<It is up to you to deviate this opinion with hard facts that illustrate desire for change, rather than accusations.>>

The fatal flaw in the reasoning here being that while the industry is expecting *charities* like ourselves to come up with "hard facts", they have so far been unable to provide hard evidence to support the contrary either. It's all assumption or, even worse, hearing people trying to tell deaf people what they need.
And I'd like to point out that we do HAVE the well-expressed desire from change, from within the deaf community, a FACT that you seem to ignore. It seems however, that the industry is unwilling to accept that. If they don't accept that, why don't they ask deaf people directly, rather than dismiss what is being said. I also note that Arnoud, being deaf, is happily ignored as a voice of the deaf community.
Thus, it all boils down to this: does the industry accept that organisations like RNID, who represent the interests of deaf and hard of hearing people AND do have the daily expertise in this field, as being able to voice the needs and requirements of deaf and hard of hearing people??
With "accusations" this has little to do. Do I take it you're willing to say publicly, for instance on the BBC, that you don't care about the express desires of the deaf community then?

Guido

Guido Gybels
Director of New Technologies

RNID, 19-23 Featherstone Street
London EC1Y 8SL, UK
Tel +44(0)20-7294 3713
Fax +44(0)20-7296 8069

************************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed. Any views or opinions expressed
are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
RNID policy.

If you are not the intended recipient you are advised that any
use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
email is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this email in error please notify the RNID
Helpdesk by telephone on: +44 (0) 207 296 8282.

The Royal National Institute for Deaf People  
Registered Office 19-23 Featherstone Street 
London EC1Y 8SL No. 454169 (England)
Registered Charity No. 207720
************************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Jun 2003 17:25:08 -0500

I'm willing to accept a user requirement for real-time texting on
display phones. Of course, we should also have a neural input pad
capable of I/O for quadraplegics and people with their hands full (can
you imagine a real-time-text interface via a sip-and-puff controller?
Ouch! People would hyperventilate saying "hello"!) but that's probably a
little further off ;-(. Maybe ten more years . . .

In the meantime. . .

Question: Have we analyzed the problems of the loss-characteristics of
RFC2793 vs. the overhead of near-real-time character by character IMs?

One of my first projects studying computer enabled human communication
was a text conference package. The first incarnation of it used UDP
transmission without a reliability layer (a really lightweight cousin of
RTP). On two machines on the same segment, it worked pretty well. But
across campus, with a halfdozen or so routers that were always running
at full capacity in between, it really sucked. Instead of looking "like
this does" it was more like "ie thdos" due to packet losses. We switched
to TCP with disabled Nagle algorithm (allowing multiple outstanding
small packets) and found it much more satisfying to use. The slight loss
of timing acuity was handily made up for by the increased alphabetic
acuity.

Given that the "3G" phone I'm using has comparable loss characteristics
to that old campus net, I can't imagine RTP text (even with redundant
coding) giving satisfactory performance.

Consequently, I'm thinking that we might be better off defining a model
of instant messaging (perhaps with MSRP) that preserves as much temporal
acuity as possible, while still having the realibility and
network-problem-tolerance of IM. The nifty thing is that such a model
could have the advantage of interworking directly with conventiional IMs
applications -- it would simply be a user-settable option. One could
then trade off between smooth real-time and reduced network overhead as
appropriate for a given conversation, or even dynamically within a
conversation. Of course, that woul make this a SIMPLEproblem. not a
SIPPING problem, but we have to start somewhere.

--Dean