On Jul 2, 2008, at 5:35 PM, "Andy Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Woof! > > On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:05:07 -0400, Joe Attardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > >> 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 perfect example of just because you CAN do something, perhaps it > makes no sense. > I feel that "Isolate" should do both deaf AND mute. > >> >> 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? > > It has its uses. It's a cheap way of doing what is called a > "sidebar" conference, > where some of the members can talk amongst themselves without being > heard by > the main conference. (Think of a judge and the lawyers talking > quietly so > the jury cannot hear). In this case, the jury could be "isolated" > while the > others talk. Of course, it's not a "true" sidebar in that the jury > cannot > talk or hear anyone else while isolated...I said it was cheap. > > A true sidebar would set up a second conference, move the lawyers > and judge > into it, and feed in the audio (slightly muted) from the first > conference as well. > Thus the jury could not hear the lawyers and judge, but THEY could > still hear > the jury, and the jury could still hear each other. The jury could > be discussing > where to go to lunch, for example, and the lawyer's might want to > keep an > ear out while they talk with the judge. > In freeswitch there is functionality to do this without having to leave the conference. You can use the relate command to adjust which members any member can hear or talk to, allowing you all sorts of funtionality... Now how do we do a GUI for that? Another note, we do have talker detecion, is that currently displayed? >> 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? > > Because, as you rightly mention, the correct phrase is "kick out", > not "kick". > The former does not hurt physically as much as the latter. Evict is > a single > word that means "kick out". So I would like to see either "kick > out" OR "evict" > but NOT "kick". > > --Woof! > _______________________________________________ > sipx-dev mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
