RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar

["Boyer, David G \(Dave\)" <dgboyer at avaya.com>]

Noa, Brian -

I actually would add a 4th case to Noa's list - that would be where
one participant actually whispers to another person (the whisperer - I
guess I mad up that word - could tell the presenter they forgot to make
a point).
I would argue that case 3 (passing a note) is analogous to sending an IM
to a fellow conference participant.  The difference is, in a face to face
conference, you might see the note being passed.  In an audio conference
you don't know if attendies are also having private, side-bar, IM 
sessions.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xcon-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:xcon-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Brian Rosen
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:27 AM
> To: 'Noa Kissilov'; 'Paul Kyzivat'
> Cc: oritl at microsoft.com; xcon at ietf.org; Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com
> Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> 
> 
> I understand your use case.
> 
> I don't think that is a classic whisper (agent, coach, mark).
> 
> If it applies to audio, either you think MESSAGE with audio is
>   a reasonable way to do it, or you expect some kind of signaling,
>   possibly not SIP, "opens a channel", allows you to speak, and
>   then returns you to the regular program.
> 
>   If the latter, then:
> 	It is identical to the signaling you would expect to use
> 	for sidebars
> 
> 	You would expect to use it for text as well as audio/video
> 	instead of MESSAGE
> 
> In all of this, of course, nothing stops you from sending a
> MESSAGE to any person, including a participant, outside of
> the conference context.
> 
> Brian
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Noa Kissilov [mailto:NoaK at radvision.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 1:58 AM
> > To: Brian Rosen; Paul Kyzivat
> > Cc: oritl at microsoft.com; xcon at ietf.org; Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com
> > Subject: RE: [XCON] Whisper vs. Sidebar
> > 
> > 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
> 

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