[standards-jig] Re: [Foundation] Motion for Last Call - Chat State Notifications (JEP-0085)

Sebastiaan Deckers cbas at rhymbox.com
Thu Dec 4 20:22:05 UTC 2003


No one is being forced to support this.  Perhaps you can make it 
optional in your clients.  Perhaps not implement it at all.

Loss of privacy is the same argument used a long time ago against the 
composing event and could just as well be used against the displayed event.
People thought privacy was going to be lost forever, but in reality it 
turned out to be quite helpful in a conversation.
The fact is that you can not rely on this information being accurate for 
spying purposes.  People might have it turned off, there might be a bug 
in the client, someone may be tricking you into thinking that they are 
reading the conversation, etc.


Here is one example where the gone event would help.

[ Alice and Bob have had a long conversation ]
Alice says: I have to go.  It was nice talking to you.  TTYL

Now Bob is thinking: Shit, do I reply "bye" and risk having the message 
queued in offline storage because she's really already offline?  Then 
she might not get it until the next day, at which time she will be 
confused as to why I said "bye".  Or do I not send anything and keep 
Alice waiting for me to aknowledge, making me seem like a jerk?

Solution: Alice was in a hurry and closed the window.  Her client send 
the "gone" chatstate and Bob saw that he did not need to acknowledge her 

Note: This only works if Alice closes her chatwindow, making the client 
tell Bob not to bother replying because she's left already.  Call it 
implicit messaging if you will. :-)


Julian Missig wrote:

> On 4 Dec, 2003, at 10:57, Sebastiaan Deckers wrote:
>> + Introduces new conversation modes besides composing: active, 
>> inactive, gone
> I've yet to hear a compelling argument that these new states are 
> actually necessary and beneficial to the user. While notification of 
> typing is a slight violation of privacy, I certainly don't want people 
> know when their window is active/inactive or when I've closed it. 
> Really I think it would just end up making some people feel bad, and I 
> don't think there's a clear benefit to it.
> Julian

More information about the Standards mailing list