3 ms·
> 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 po
by 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 agoDid 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 agoAh—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.