[Standards-JIG] Re: Extended user info updates
jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Thu Mar 17 15:25:04 UTC 2005
I am heartily agreeing 1000 percent with your statement about telcos, and I
am not chocked by your position. I have not been studying CMC, but I have
probably been around longer than you have :(, and I cannot recall all the
misconceptions and born(or brain)-dead projects this particular industry has
been responsible for.
But, I am in business (sorry...) and telcos are part of my customers. And
whatever you may say, a customer is king, even when it is not right :)
And if you read me, you'll certainly notice that I never stated that user
needed 'needed' certain feature. Nor that telcos were right in forcing these
same features to users. I was stating the fact that, they, telcos (and other
industry) wanted these feature. This is a business fact.
You can buy a Corvette that does 160 mph, and be limited to 80mph on the
motorway. So what' the point, but you find people buying it. No one owns the
whole truth, but no one is entirely rational either.
This academic discussion is taking us far from XMPP isn't it ;) All because
I wanted a standardized way to transport display name from a gateway to a
> I've been studying the research on Computer-Mediated Communication in
> HCI and Social Psychology for a couple of months now, and I have to
> say that I do *not* trust telcos to know what they're talking about.
> AT&T and associates have been trying to push videophones for *three
> decades* (first commercial PicturePhone was available in Pittsburgh
> in 1970, most recent *huge* push was in 1992 with the Videophone
> 2500) without much success. The CMC research showed that videophones
> have very little value over regular audio for completing work-like
> tasks (i.e., corporate environment), and sure enough, even the
> corporations which adopted videophones eventually dropped them in
> favor of regular phones. The CMC researchers had difficulty getting
> their own research team to consistently use such things after the
> novelty wore off. (Now, that's not to say that videochat in and of
> itself is worthless--I'm sure that implemented correctly it will
> catch on in the right markets--but the videophones telcos have been
> making for the corporate market have obviously not been on-target.)
> It's going to take a lot more than telcos getting behind something to
> convince me that users actually /need/ it.
> With all due respect, telcos are not always right. No one is.
> That said, my greater point is that right now the interfaces for
> <status> may not be good enough if MSN users are complaining that
> they need this nickname-changing functionality.
More information about the Standards