On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <g...@trace.wisc.edu>wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Winfried Tilanus wrote: > > I don't say RTT is good or bad, useful or useless. But I oppose to > the assumption that RTT is a minor privacy intrusion compared to an audio > or video chat. It is a different kind of privacy intrusion and should > be treated like that. > > I agree with most of what you said -- but I think intrusion is the wrong > word. > if you force it on someone- perhaps. > > but if it is something they turn on... then I don't see it as an > intrusion. just an option and a different way to communicate that has > different characteristics. >
Correct -- and educating the user too, is important too! It's a long, gradual process. After all, we didn't have Facebook, Twitter or YouTube 10 years ago. Now most Internet users worldwide have "heard" of at least two of the three of the above. The first attempt to initiate real-time text can have a detailed pop-up balloon that says: *"Fast Text is your text transmitted instantly while you type!* You can immediately read each other's text as it is written, without waiting. It combines the advantages of text-based messaging, with the interactive conversational nature of a telephone conversation. Click the * =T* button to turn on/off Fast Text. * [Continue]"* * * * * Mind you, educating users is beyond the scope of XEP-0301, but it is worth mentioning to potential software vendors (at least as part of a FAQ I'll be creating for a real-time text development page eventually). Sincerely Mark Rejhon
