[Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1

Mark Rejhon markybox at gmail.com
Wed Aug 22 19:35:19 UTC 2012


Hello Matthew,

Thanks for your comments!
I eager await your ongoing comments.  Just some brief reply:


On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Matthew Miller
<linuxwolf at outer-planes.net> wrote:
> * Reword the paragraph 3 in terms of the problems it is solving. One possible suggestion:

I like the inclusion of the following: It can also allow immediate
conversation in situations where speech cannot be used (e.g. quiet
environments, privacy, deaf and hard of hearing).

One potentially popular application that some end-users told me (plus
potential users, like a friend of mine, who works in the military,
where some secure text-messaging systems are used) is the ability to
communicate quietly, privately, and covertly, using text -- and
real-time text would also speed up communications without the sound of
speaking, and without waiting for complete sentences of messages.  So
any rewordings of the paragraph, should be able to adequately cover
the above useful scenario of being able to communicate voice-style
using text, without making noises.


> While XMPP CORE [RFC6120] and XMPP IM [RFC6121] provides for near real-time text conversation, this is often as sentences or sentence fragments that convey complete thought on the part of the sender, in a linear progression, as the user directs.

One observation -- by the deaf audience's eyes, instant message
threads are not considered live (real-time) conversations because it
implies forced waiting by recipients for sender messages.  This can be
important during a deaf person's potential "fastest possible method of
communicating".  So, I would prefer not to use the phrase "near
real-time text" verbatim, because it's only as real-time as the sender
wants it to be -- e.g. how frequently the sender hits Enter.   It
could even be once every minute, which can lead to annoying waits, and
is not near-real time.  I will try to find another synonym phrase.
Also, in some accessible communities, the word "conversation" has a
different definition.
But you have a good point, my old text might not be good either to
certain audiences.
The challenge is, what text to replace with?

So, the challenge is, the paragraph needs to be written both
geek-friendly (people like you and me) and deaf-friendly (one part of
the audience).  The wording that you chose, will need to be tweaked.
Although real-time text can be viewed (by some) as an accessible
technology, it does have military and emergency applications, as well
as teen texting applications, etc.  It's a challenge, fine balancing
act, since I'm catering to so many potential audiences with this spec.

Mark Rejhon



More information about the Standards mailing list