[Standards-JIG] Re: Extended user info updates

Julian Missig julian at jabber.org
Thu Mar 17 15:21:49 UTC 2005

Well, I just think if you're going to argue for this persistent  
extended status information (as opposed to presence-dependent status  
information), don't do it as a "display name" or "nickname"--make a  
protocol for what it really is: persistent extended status  
information. And maybe tie it into or acknowledge that it's similar  
to User Mood and other extended status information. Also make it  
clear how this is different from <status> and when clients should use  


On 17 Mar 2005, at 10:25 , Jean-Louis Seguineau wrote:

> Hi Julian,
> 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
> client...
> Jean-Louis
> -----Original Message-----
>> Jean-Louis,
>> 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.
>> Julian
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards-jig

More information about the Standards mailing list