3 ms·

see https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html This is that feature in xmpp, but it didn't send as you typed, it batch

see https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html This is that feature in xmpp, but it didn't send as you typed, it batched up typing and sent just one packet a second (or so) with timed keystrokes in the packet so it could play back a simulation of you typing; thus giving the illusion of live typing while not swamping the network. There's some demo gifs over on https://www.realjabber.org/ https://www.realjabber.org/ (the more recent website had flash demos only and has since been shut down...this is all a bit delapidated)

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
> so it could play back a simulation of you typing; thus giving the illusion of live typing while not swamping the network. IMO, this completely defeats the point. The advantage of live typing is that I can see what someone is typing sooner, before they're even done, and start considering my response. I want to see their message, or partial message, as soon as possible. I don't want to see some movie of all of their keystrokes and corrections. It's totally fine if it comes with the territory, but only in the name of reducing latency. That isn't to say I'm against batching the keystrokes to conserve bandwidth, but don't fake it!
- bazzargh 4y ago
  Did you watch the demo? https://www.realjabber.org/anim/real_time_text_demo.html https://www.realjabber.org/anim/real_time_text_demo.html You ARE seeing it before they are done (compare to the left hand window, which what most chat apps do now), the delay in seeing live typing is at most one second, and the experience of watching the batched messages without the timing information (the middle window) is painful.
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    Ah—no, I hadn't seen the demo. What isn't clear to me from the demo, however, is what happens if the typist uses backspace or pauses while typing. I wouldn't want those things to get transmitted if they happened within the span of a single transmission. In other words, it's okay to display letter-by-letter, similar to video game dialog, but they don't need to keep the original timing information.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

> so it could play back a simulation of you typing; thus giving the illusion of live typing while not swamping the network. IMO, this completely defeats the point. The advantage of live typing is that I can see what someone is typing sooner, before they're even done, and start considering my response. I want to see their message, or partial message, as soon as possible. I don't want to see some movie of all of their keystrokes and corrections. It's totally fine if it comes with the territory, but only in the name of reducing latency. That isn't to say I'm against batching the keystrokes to conserve bandwidth, but don't fake it!

bazzargh 4y ago
Did you watch the demo? https://www.realjabber.org/anim/real_time_text_demo.html https://www.realjabber.org/anim/real_time_text_demo.html You ARE seeing it before they are done (compare to the left hand window, which what most chat apps do now), the delay in seeing live typing is at most one second, and the experience of watching the batched messages without the timing information (the middle window) is painful.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  Ah—no, I hadn't seen the demo. What isn't clear to me from the demo, however, is what happens if the typist uses backspace or pauses while typing. I wouldn't want those things to get transmitted if they happened within the span of a single transmission. In other words, it's okay to display letter-by-letter, similar to video game dialog, but they don't need to keep the original timing information.