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

Gregg Vanderheiden gv at trace.wisc.edu
Fri Aug 24 18:17:30 UTC 2012

I like choice 1

Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net

On Aug 24, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Mark Rejhon <markybox at gmail.com> wrote:

> Since the spec targets all audiences,
> I may have to remove the "TTY" from the introduction, and simply say:
> CHOICE #1 (preferred, to avoid expanding "TTY")
> -----------------------------------------
> * Various text telephone technologies (e.g. TTY), used by the deaf and
> hard of hearing.
> 6.6.1 c/"TTY gateway"/"TTY/text telephone gateway"/
> (No other changes)
> -----------------------------------------
> CHOICE #2 (secondary, if I must remove TTY)
> -----------------------------------------
> * Various text telephone technologies (used by the deaf and hard of hearing).
> 2.4 -- c/"TTY/text telephone alternatives"/"text telephone alternatives"/
> 6.6.1 -- c/"TTY gateway"/"text telephone gateway"/
> 8 - c/"This can include TTY and textphones"/"This can include text telephones"/
> -----------------------------------------
> The term "text telephone" is disliked by some North Americans, but it
> is more worldwide-neutral, and I reintroduce the paranthesis to
> explain to the non-deaf, what they're for.   North Americans will
> quiclky figure out it means "TTY" and Europeans will quickly figure
> out it means "textphone" or "real-time text phone", etc.  And people
> who don't know what it is, "text telephone" is somewhat
> self-explanatory.    However, a major target audience of XEP-0301 is
> North America, and therefore it's important to mention TTY.
> I am proposing I go with CHOICE #1, since it already defines what a
> "TTY" is, without expanding the obsolete acronym not used in the deaf
> community.   Just like RADAR and SONAR, TTY is no longer considered an
> acronym in general use.
> Government legislation about TTY
> http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/html/tech-07.html
> Do not even expand "TTY".   Why should we??
> Thanks,
> Mark Rejhon
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gunnar Hellström
> <gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se> wrote:
>> On 2012-08-23 18:31, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> On 8/23/12 10:22 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>>> I do realize this might seem pointless to some, but I really do
>>>> want to understand where this technology is coming from.
>>> Matt, it's basically a matter of the history of computing at this
>>> point. Unfortunately, these days (when XML is considered old) few
>>> people care about such ancient technologies.
>>> The best historical reference I've found is a pamphlet published by
>>> the Teletype Corporation in 1963 (Editors: R. A. Nelson; K. M. Lovitt,
>>> Editor; October 1963; Teletype Corporation, 5555 West Touhy Avenue,
>>> Skokie, Illinois). I found a scanned-in copy here:
>>> http://www.rtty.com/TTYSTORY/ttsindex.htm
>>> Or did you want something more modern?
>>> Peter
>> Yes, that reference was the pre-history.
>> In the 1960-s deaf engineers in USA got surplus teletypewriters and designed
>> an FSK modem for them so they could be used for limited real-time text
>> communication over PSTN. I think the original Teletypewriters used DC
>> transmission, unsuitable for the PSTN, and needed that upgrade. Later,
>> purpose-built terminals were created, using the same transmission
>> technology, having the modem built-in. They continued to use the name TTY,
>> but are quite different from the original Teletypewriter TTY. That is why we
>> should not just refer to Teletypewriter in this use of the term TTY.
>> People in Europe thought that the idea was good, but took various standard
>> modems in use for the same purpose, and created text telephones, sadly with
>> different uninteroperable modems in different countries during the 70s and
>> 80s. The mistake in created fragmented islands of uninteroperable groups was
>> discovered, and an effort was done to harmonize with an automoding modem
>> protocol, called ITU-T V.18.
>> But the regulatory or market forces were too weak, so V.18 became common
>> only in UK.  Other countries continued to use their national variants.
>> If you really think it is important to have a technical reference describing
>> the protocols for TTY and the other text telephone types, we can have a look
>> at three documents that might be suitable:
>> ITU-T Recommendation V.18, Automoding procedures for DCEs working in the
>> text telephone mode.
>> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-V.18-200011-I with amendment
>> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-V.18-200211-I!Amd1
>> <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-V.18-200211-I%21Amd1>
>> The annexes describe the different modem based protocols for the different
>> text telephone standards, ( Including TTY, that is called 5-bit in this
>> reference.
>> ETSI EG 102 230 Duplex Universal Speech and Text
>> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_eg/202300_202399/202320/01.02.01_60/eg_202320v010201p.pdf
>> Where Annex A.2 contains a brief description of the current textphone
>> systems.
>> IETF RFC 5194 Framework for Real-Time Text over IP Using the Session
>> Initiation Protocol (SIP)
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5194.txt
>> where section PSTN Interworking contains a very brief introduction
>> to the textphone protocols.
>> /Gunnar

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20120824/c78bceee/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list