On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 17:05 -0400, Joe Attardi wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a few questions regarding some of the recent changes to some of > the terminology used in the conferencing section of sipXconfig. > > 1. "Deaf/Un-Deaf" --> "Isolate/Include" > Don't get me wrong - I hated the terminology "Deaf/Un-Deaf". But I think > "Isolate/Include" is even less clear. > > It's also inaccurate - if you "deaf" or "isolate" a conference > participant, while they cannot hear the conference, they still can > speak. They are not truly "isolated" unless they are deafed AND muted. > > A bigger question may be... do we really even need this functionality? > Why would a user even be in a conference if they can't hear anything? > I can't see why you would want to allow someone to speak but not hear (though I know a few people (from my past of course) who run in that mode most of the time)
> 2. "Kick" --> "Evict" ? > I don't understand the objection to the term "Kick". It's very commonly > used for this exact type of scenario: > The misbehaving student was kicked out of class. > Bob was in the Army until he got kicked out. > See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kick, definition 31: > "kick out, Informal. > a. To oust or eject: They have been kicked out of the country club. " > > Kick is much clearer than Evict... what is the motivation for this change? "kick out" is not the same as "kick" No question that "kick out" is clear, though a little rude. I would take "kick" to mean any action, as in the watchdog "kicked" the process to start it. -Kathy _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
