[RTW] My biggest concern

Thu Mar 31 13:52:09 CEST 2011

Agree that calling is not the only scenario, but an important one.

I think that application developers will need to put HTML5
notifications<http://www.html5rocks.com/tutorials/notifications/quick/>to
good use for incoming calls, messages and such.

/Serge

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 13:43, Tim Panton <tim at phonefromhere.com> wrote:

> Our experience at phonefromhere.com is that on-for-a-long-time (!= always
> on) is actually the main use case.
> We had assumed that short calls to sales/support would be the main usage,
> but it isn't (at least for us).
> We see more take up as a deskphone substitute for folks on the road/home
> (taking incoming calls - hence 'available' for 8 hours a day )
> or deeply embedded in collaborative environments (conference calls, shared
> whiteboards etc) where the calls also last for hours.
>
> The only place where short calls seem to happen much is the "I don't want
> my/your number recorded" market - think dating and recruitment.
>
> Tim.
>
> On 31 Mar 2011, at 12:15, Wendt, Chris wrote:
>
> I would envision that the use case of a traditional phone/video
> conferencing terminal, security camera, etc. (i.e. always on) is something
> that would be either not implemented using RTCWeb, or would use some form of
> an "embedded browser".
>
>  The use case of embedding voice/video/etc. capabilities in a web page in
> a traditional browser would be more for temporary availability use case.
>  Customer service call, game chat, virtual environment, etc.
>
>  That, of course, is not to say the "always on" case would be impossible
> to implement in a traditional browser, but at least, for me, wouldn't be my
> first choice.
>
>  Curious if others agree, or if I am way off-base.
>
>  -Chris
>
>
>   From: Erik Lagerway <erik at hookflash.com>
> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:30:54 +0200
> To: Justin Uberti <juberti at google.com>
> Cc: "rtc-web at alvestrand.no" <rtc-web at alvestrand.no>
> Subject: Re: [RTW] My biggest concern
>
>  It could be that this will become more of an apparent issue as the web
> apps we are speaking of are increasingly used for incoming calls as well?
>
> *Erik Lagerway | hookflash | m. +1.604.562.8647 | www.hookflash.com*
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti at google.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not clear to me that users who close the browser every time they want
>> to go to a new page are the kinds of users who would multi-task while on a
>> call.
>>
>>  FWIW, we haven't seen this as a problem with our web applications (which
>> alert the user when closing the page when a call is active).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Robin Raymond <robin at hookflash.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  Except that the alert before a page closed will effectively mean the
>>> users can't browser while a call is established. I know they can open tabs
>>> but for many more novice users tabs are still complicated and they usually
>>> hit the close for the browser instead of the tab because of their confusion
>>> if a new tab is automatically opened for browsing purposes.
>>>
>>>  Yes, some UI tricks might help to fix this issue (especially browser
>>> concept improvements like background apps) but I think it's important to
>>> raise the issue even if it is beyond the scope of the protocol itself.
>>> Otherwise a strong protocol will exist with a fatal flaw (I do understand
>>> from a protocol perspective this isn't important). For some websites (like
>>> games since), this might not matter but if a user is intending to use their
>>> browser for the primary means of communication in the future this is an
>>> issue especially with the way browsers are currently working.
>>>
>>>  Robin Raymond
>>> hookflash
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>  On 03/28/11 14:31, Robin Raymond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Pinning as an app tab is not something the average user is going to
>>>> know how to do and it does not remove the search bar or the ability to
>>>> navigate away. While it might be a possible solution if browsers added this
>>>> concept programmatically (relying on the user is not practical IMHO), that
>>>> would open another can of worms on how to prevent abuse where ads start
>>>> creating themselves as auto-pinned "app" tabs.
>>>>
>>>>  While it might not be a concern for the draft per-say, if you design
>>>> something that in practice doesn't work in the real world it will be a
>>>> draft/RFC that won't get wildly adopted and that's death for anything as
>>>> implementation is critical. I think it's important not to ignore this issue
>>>> and a workable solution must be found or it will never get used by real
>>>> users.
>>>>
>>>>  There's an even simpler workaround employed by many pages with
>>>> in-progress state:
>>>>
>>>> Attaching a Javascript popup to the "close" action saying "You're in the
>>>> middle of a call. Do you want to hang up?"
>>>>
>>>> A more advanced implementation with background app pages would offer
>>>> multiple choices:
>>>> - Suspend the call, but make it available for resumption
>>>> - Keep the call open, running in a background page
>>>> - Hang up the call
>>>> I think Javascript has the necessary hooks, and we can leave this one to
>>>> the UI designers.
>>>>
>>>>                  Harald
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Robin Raymond
>>>> hookflash
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Timothy B. Terriberry <
>>>> tterriberry at mozilla.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  In my own situation, I have a list of common viewed websites at the
>>>>>> top
>>>>>> of my browser and a simple accidental click will go to those new
>>>>>> pages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  If that's your biggest concern, then I have good news for you. Firefox
>>>>> 4 has a feature called App Tabs designed to address these use cases (I
>>>>> believe Chrome has something similar, but I don't use it so I don't actually
>>>>> know). More information here:
>>>>> http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/what-are-app-tabs, but the
>>>>> relevant sentence is: "Links to new websites open in a new tab so that your
>>>>> App Tab doesn't change." I think this does exactly what you want.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, this is fundamentally an issue for the user-agent, and
>>>>> not, I think, one that has much impact on the actual standards.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> RTC-Web mailing list
>>>>> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
>>>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RTC-Web mailing listRTC-Web at alvestrand.nohttp://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTC-Web mailing list
>>> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTC-Web mailing list
>> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________ RTC-Web mailing list
> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
> _______________________________________________
> RTC-Web mailing list
> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTC-Web mailing list
> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>
>

-- 
Serge Lachapelle, Product Manager, T: +46 732 01 22 32
Google Sweden AB | Kungsbron 2, SE-111 22 Stockholm | Org. nr. 556656-6880

This email may be confidential or privileged.  If you received this
communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else,please
erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the
wrong person.  Thanks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtc-web/attachments/20110331/30a742ae/attachment.html>