RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar

["Noa Kissilov" <NoaK at radvision.com>]

I think of the following analogy, though it might not at all be relevant
- just to put it up:
Say we have a regular conference (non virtual) - people meeting in a
room to discuss something. There are 3 ways for people to talk to each
other:
1. participate in the main conference
2. have a private conversation - leave the room for a while or talk to
some other person/people while the main conference is going on.
Obviously the people gathering aside are aware of the main conference,
can hear it, but it's not their main focus (unless very talanted people
:-) )
3. write a note to someone else in the room. Until the answer arrives
one fully participates in the main conference. This is a way for people
to talk amongst themselves but still remain with the focus on the main
conference. The private conversation is done in the background.

So I see 2 as equivalent to sidebars, where 3 is equivalent to whispers.
The difference is the context of the private conversation, or where
exactly the listening is - in the sidebar or in the main conference.
Saying this, a whisper cannot be a sidebar of 2 participants, that is on
going. It has to be a momentary sidebar, intended only for one message
and terminated right after (and everybody is back in the main
conference).

    noa.


-----Original Message-----
From: xcon-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:xcon-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 19:57
To: 'Paul Kyzivat'
Cc: oritl at microsoft.com; xcon at ietf.org; Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com
Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar


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



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