RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar

["Brian Rosen" <br at brianrosen.net>]

I am in agreement with all of your points.

If folks have use cases for whisper for which isn't the agent/coach/mark
scenario we have been discussing, could we surface those now?

For the basic sequence, would you accept a MESSAGE + talkspurt body
for a PTT whisper implementation?  Somehow, I suspect not, but speak up.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat at cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 12:50 PM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com; oritl at microsoft.com; xcon at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Rosen wrote:
> > I like it.  So, the UI starts by assuming one, and learns if it needs to
> > switch to the other.  Could work.
> 
> Maybe. There are potential problems ensuring that you get to the right
> destination when switching. But if you start out using MESSAGE, then you
> already have that problem from one message to the next - switching to an
> INVITE w/MSRP doesn't make that worse.
> 
> > I'm not clear how this applies to audio or video.
> 
> Its certainly clearer with IM. Maybe it can't be pushed any further than
> that.
> 
>  > I get a "push to talk",
> > but unless you lock the push button down, it really seems to be two UI
> > functions.
> 
> If you are comparing PTT to regular audio I agree. A fairer comparison
> might be a PTT UI implemented as an audio clip in a MESSAGE vs
> implemented as an audio media stream with floor control.
> 
>  > Now, that is really up to the UI designer and not subject to
> > standardization.  The standardization question is whether you want to
> define
> > a no-state talkspurt-is-coming-now-send-it-where-it-needs-to-go
> equivalent
> > to MESSAGE.
> 
> "Equivalent to MESSAGE"? MESSAGE is fully capable of this now, subject
> only to message size limitations. Those don't apply if you use a flow
> controlled connection path. The question is whether you want to use it.
> 
>  > You could do this with SIP, or you could do it with some media
> > control function.  What are you suggesting?
> 
> I'm only suggesting that this is a similar problem, at least wrt IM.
> 
> In the case of IM, while we aren't going to standardize the UI, I think
> we are going to have to come up with some kind of best practice
> recommendation, or use cases, to ensure that we have interoperation
> among implementations that otherwise make incompatible choices about
> which technique to use in a given case.
> 
> In your case, I get the impression that the people who are arguing that
> whisper is special have some particular use cases in mind, where to them
> the use of page mode IM will sometimes be desired.
> 
> I think you may need to get down to specific use cases, and how they are
> implemented, to get everyone on the same page.
> 
> > I like the general tone of this, because I've always been unhappy with
> > conferencing having to deal with MESSAGE differently than all other
> media.
> > I'd like to either find an equivalent for other media, or just not use
> it
> > for conferencing.
> 
> I wish MESSAGE had never been created.
> 
> 	Paul
> 
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat at cisco.com]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:40 AM
> >>To: Brian Rosen
> >>Cc: Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com; oritl at microsoft.com; xcon at ietf.org
> >>Subject: Re: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> >>
> >>Trimmed the discussion. Comment at end.
> >>
> >>	Paul
> >>
> >>Brian Rosen wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm still pretty confused about this.
> >>>
> >>>Somehow, you think a whisper is a very transient thing.  That's not my
> >>>experience.  Usually, the coach opens a whisper function and coaches
> >>>the agent throughout the transaction.  It's not a push to talk, it
> >>>really is more stateful.
> >>>
> >>>Of course, many sidebars are one shot side comments from one
> participant
> >>>to another.
> >>>
> >>>The thing is, you don't know the user's intent; you don't know if they
> >>>intend to do a one shot, or intend to leave the channel open, unless
> >>>you give them two UI functions.  Since that would seem to be equally
> >>>applicable to whispers and sidebars,
> >>
> >>This isn't unique to conferencing. We are going to have exactly the same
> >>problem in trying to decide between session mode and page mode for e2e
> >>IM. Do you want two distinct UIs for the two? Or do you want to have one
> >>UI that makes a decision on which to use?
> >>
> >>I think it will probably become a requirement for a good IM UI to make
> >>the decision. I think this will be the case because page mode will
> >>probably continue to be abused when session mode is more appropriate, so
> >>  even if the UI would prefer to use session mode for a conversation, it
> >>will have to be capable of using page mode if that is all the other
> >>party is willing to do.
> >>
> >>	Paul
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 




_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
XCON at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon