Read while the other one is typing

[The_Tick]

Didn't something similar come up when we found out that you would be notified that a buddy was typing a message to you before you've recieved any messages in the current session?
I believe the feature was taken out because some saw it as an invasion of privacy, but then it was put back in because it's a feature of the protocol.

To me it's a feature. One that Adium should support if the protocol supports it. Yes there should also be a preference to turn this off (maybe even off by default).

I think that you've gone off base here on why people are not liking this, but most are ok with the is typing thing.

The typing/not typing notification just let's the other party know what you are sending them. This on the other hand sends them stuff that sometimes they were just not meant to see.

This is really intrusive. If I'm pasting something, and then i have to reformat it for instance, it also becomes a big pain to the other side.

[ozean]

If you want to simultaneously write and see what the other one is writing I recommend chatting with the good old Unix talk protocol. That was the way I did chat back in '95

Another alternative would be some kind of SubEthaEdit setup where you both work on one document...

[1985]

Another alternative would be some kind of SubEthaEdit setup where you both work on one document...

That would spoil the fun when the other side knows that I can see 'em...

[Durandal]

Didn't something similar come up when we found out that you would be notified that a buddy was typing a message to you before you've recieved any messages in the current session?
I believe the feature was taken out because some saw it as an invasion of privacy, but then it was put back in because it's a feature of the protocol.

I don't remember any such controversy over the typing notifications feature. There's no credible argument at all for it being an invasion of privacy.

To me it's a feature. One that Adium should support if the protocol supports it. Yes there should also be a preference to turn this off (maybe even off by default).

It's an invasion of privacy and defeats the entire purpose of having a "Send" function. I see no reason to clutter up the preferences with an option to compromise your privacy or invade that of others. Adium should simply not send out these partial messages, and it should ignore such notifications from other clients.

Adium isn't going to support every feature from every protocol, and the devs have pretty much made that clear. The Yahoo! "nudge" feature is an example of this, as are AIM's "IM sounds," which are just fucking irritating.

[The_Tick]

Another alternative would be some kind of SubEthaEdit setup where you both work on one document...

That would spoil the fun when the other side knows that I can see 'em...

And this shows exactly why I'm against this.

[Son of a Preacher Man]

Have we seen any evidence yet that this "feature" even exists? That would rather make this whole, umm, discussion... pointless.

[ozean]

So it seems as if 1985 is – by chance or fate, we will never know – an aptly chosen name

[sdh]

it was said earlier in this thread that this was possible in amsn, i use amsn now and then and have never seen that feature!

[troplin]

I'm pretty sure I saw it once upon a time in the official icq client. On OS 9 or 8.
I think it was called "Chat"
/edit: yeah, on the website its called "real-time chat"
i downloaded icq 3.4 but since I'm the only one online and only got one icq account I cannot try it. And it only works to ICQ users and not to AIM users.

[bruinbrawl]

This is definitely a feature (that can be (de)activated) in iChat, but only over Rendezvous messaging.

So basically I'm just proving that it's out there.[/quote]

[The_Tick]

This is definitely a feature (that can be (de)activated) in iChat, but only over Rendezvous messaging.

So basically I'm just proving that it's out there.

[/quote]


but only for rendezvous

[1985]

Have we seen any evidence yet that this "feature" even exists? That would rather make this whole, umm, discussion... pointless.

it was said earlier in this thread that this was possible in amsn, i use amsn now and then and have never seen that feature!

I know I've seen this in some MSN app. Think they've removed the "feature" 'cause I've been searching without any luck.

[vernies_garden]

it was featured in a older MSN messenger beta but was removed due to privacy concerns

[ScoTTY]

I saw that feature in an Alias episode in season 4, but I wish it stays in the tv.
reminds me of that Austin Powers joke, about him having no more interne monologue or whatever, when he is unfrozen in film #1. It'd probably feel weird :S

as for the books, 1985, you ought to read a little. If you never read, you won't be a fast reader, and therefore that "real time chat" feature would not hasten the chat. It would only serve the destruction of privacy.

and I think such a feature would eat up a lot of bandwith. and that could turn out annoying for people like me who share a connection with other IM freaks

Yann

[1985]

it was featured in a older MSN messenger beta but was removed due to privacy concerns

It must have been that one!

as for the books, 1985, you ought to read a little. If you never read, you won't be a fast reader, and therefore that "real time chat" feature would not hasten the chat. It would only serve the destruction of privacy.

I don't read books, I read 2 newspapers and spend 4-5 hours on forums reading and reading each day. So I read, but not books. But the 1984 book looks like an interesting read for me.

[librarian]

If it's possible it'd be fun to turn on for fun or freaking out the punter at the other end.

--ook

[fracai]

Didn't something similar come up when we found out that you would be notified that a buddy was typing a message to you before you've recieved any messages in the current session?
I believe the feature was taken out because some saw it as an invasion of privacy, but then it was put back in because it's a feature of the protocol.

To me it's a feature. One that Adium should support if the protocol supports it. Yes there should also be a preference to turn this off (maybe even off by default).

I think that you've gone off base here on why people are not liking this, but most are ok with the is typing thing.

The typing/not typing notification just let's the other party know what you are sending them. This on the other hand sends them stuff that sometimes they were just not meant to see.

This is really intrusive. If I'm pasting something, and then i have to reformat it for instance, it also becomes a big pain to the other side.

which is why you'd be able to turn this off. I actually think it's something that should be off by default, but people familiar with Rendezvous/Bonjour or other protocols that support this (I'm almost positive I've seen this in ICQ or some other protocol) might expect it. It's certainly not the most important feature, but it's hardly something that should be immediately discounted.

[Durandal]

which is why you'd be able to turn this off. I actually think it's something that should be off by default, but people familiar with Rendezvous/Bonjour or other protocols that support this (I'm almost positive I've seen this in ICQ or some other protocol) might expect it. It's certainly not the most important feature, but it's hardly something that should be immediately discounted.

First of all, this is something that has to be enabled on the sender's end. The sender would have to voluntarily enable the option to send text as he was typing.

So this whole process immediately removes the juvenile and frankly moronic "HUHUHUHUH I WANA FRAEK THEM OUT!!! LOLZZ!!11" reason for something like this.

Second of all, what if the person on the other end is using a client that, unbeknownst to them, sends their text as it's being typed? Should Adium automatically just pick up and receive it without the other person knowing? I think not. That constitutes an invasion of privacy.

Finally, this live updating would result in more view updates, which means that Adium would use more CPU time in the course of a conversation (to say nothing of Rendezvous chats). That means re-rendering the WebKit view upwards of once every second if the other person types at ~60 words/minute. Imagine Safari rendering 15 small web pages concurrently. Now imagine that you're typing a response while the other person is doing this, and Adium's text input field has to grow another line. Talk about slooooooooooow.

So in conclusion, the following reason for implementing this live text viewing are:

1. To invade others' privacy (childish and stupid).
2. Just because.

The reason not to implement this are:

1. To respect others' privacy.
2. It's not even close to essential.
3. It would be dog-slow.

That should pretty much settle this issue.

[librarian]

First of all, this is something that has to be enabled on the sender's end. The sender would have to voluntarily enable the option to send text as he was typing.

Well, yeh, I kind assumed that. It's as the *sender* I want to play games with the recipient using this clever scheme.

So this whole process immediately removes the juvenile and frankly moronic "HUHUHUHUH I WANA FRAEK THEM OUT!!! LOLZZ!!11" reason for something like this.

You have no librarian-nature.

Second of all, what if the person on the other end is using a client that, unbeknownst to them, sends their text as it's being typed? Should Adium automatically just pick up and receive it without the other person knowing?

If the client at the other end does this, then they're open to having their privacy exploited already... this wouldn't change that.

Finally, this live updating would result in more view updates, which means that Adium would use more CPU time in the course of a conversation (to say nothing of Rendezvous chats). That means re-rendering the WebKit view upwards of once every second if the other person types at ~60 words/minute. Imagine Safari rendering 15 small web pages concurrently.

Interesting. That's a good argument for not using webkit. I had no idea the overhead was that great... webkit doesn't have efficient incremental update? That's, um, unpleasant.

[1985]

Good points Durandal.