§3.4 Note looks very specific to non-WebRTC technologies [RAUR]

[gunnarhm]

The Note in §3.4 informs about a problematic situation in an effort to create an accessible service as a combination of traditional mobile telephony and an app handing relay service communication. The accessibility problems are inconveniences in combining these two communication means appearing because of the restrictions in traditional mobile telephony against being integrated in apps. This example has very little to do with WebRTC, so if kept, it is proposed to be introduced by text in the beginning of the note saying e.g.

"Note: Successful design of operations required for acting on incoming calls, getting informed about who the caller is and connecting relay services to the call do not require complicated sequences of user actions. WebRTC may provide a means for such service integration. Examples of situations from integration of traditional mobile telephony and relay services that may find accessible solutions with WebRTC are the following:"

And in the first line of the current note, change
"the deaf user"
to:
" the deaf user in UK",
because the description is about a current solution in UK.

[RealJoshue108]

Thanks @gunnarhm. On looking at this in more detail - I think it needs some editorial clarification. For example, the current user need I think it clear enough, and the note is designed to bring attention issues in different domains such as the UK. Are you suggesting updating the note to something like the following?:

"Note: Successful design of operations required for acting on incoming calls, getting informed about who the caller is and connecting relay services to the call do not require complicated sequences of user actions. WebRTC may provide a means for such service integration. Examples of situations from integration of traditional mobile telephony and relay services that may find accessible solutions with WebRTC are the following:

To successfully receive a relay call, using a mobile app, the deaf user needs to toggle between the app and the handset. If the incoming call is a relay call, the user will immediately activate an app, otherwise the call may be lost. In the UK, the party calling the deaf user provides a prefix to connect to the relay center. If the calling party does not use a prefix for the relay call, then the call with not have text relay assistance. In the US for example, with captioned phones the situation is different as users have access to captioning on the go as the calling party does not need to use a prefix."

If so, I'm going to suggest that we may need to state the normal situation and then the exception - how about something like:

"Successful design of operations required for acting on incoming calls, getting informed about who the caller is and connecting relay services do not normally require complicated sequences of user actions. There are however examples of situations need integration of traditional mobile telephony and relay services that may be provided using WebRTC :

In the UK to successfully receive a relay call, using a mobile app, the deaf user needs to toggle between the app and the handset. If the incoming call is a relay call, the user will immediately activate an app, otherwise the call may be lost. The party calling the deaf user provides a prefix to connect to the relay center. If the calling party does not use a prefix for the relay call, then the call with not have text relay assistance. In the US for example, with captioned phones the situation is different as users have access to captioning on the go as the calling party does not need to use a prefix."

Would that work?

[gunnarhm]

Yes, the intention was something like that. But there are still clarifications to do. What you describe as normally is not normal. There are countries which have more complex solutions than UK. And we cannot say how it is in UK without setting a date on it, because next year they might have modified it, or got another complementing solution.

Maybe the examples should be dropped because they are not related to WebRTC.

If not dropped, it may possibly be worded like this:

"Successful design of operations required for acting on incoming calls, getting informed about who the caller is and connecting relay services should not require complicated sequences of user actions.

Note: There are however examples of current situations which need integration of traditional mobile telephony and relay services that may instead be provided in a more accessible way using WebRTC :

In the UK for example (when this is written in 2021) to successfully receive a relay call, using a mobile app, the deaf user needs to toggle between the relay app and the built-in telephony app. If the incoming call is a relay call, the user must immediately activate an app, otherwise the call may be lost. The party calling the deaf user provides a prefix to connect to the relay center. If the calling party does not use a prefix for the relay call, then the call with not have text relay assistance. In the US for example, with captioned phones the situation is different as users have access to add captioning on the go to incoming and outgoing calls and the other party just handles a regular call without requiring a prefix."

[gunnarhm]

I have responded in GitHub with the following: Yes, the intention was something like that. But there are still clarifications to do. What you describe as _normally_ is not normal. There are countries which have more complex solutions than UK.  And we cannot say how it is in UK without setting a date on it, because next year they might have modified it, or got another complementing solution. Maybe the examples should be dropped because they are not related to WebRTC. If not dropped, it may possibly be worded like this: ------------------------------------------------------------ "Successful design of operations required for acting on incoming calls, getting informed about who the caller is and connecting relay services should not  require complicated sequences of user actions. Note: There are however examples of current situations which need integration of traditional mobile telephony and relay services that may instead be provided in a more accessible way using WebRTC : In the UK for example (when this is written in 2021) to successfully receive a relay call, using a mobile app, the deaf user needs to toggle between the relay app and the built-in telephony app. If the incoming call is a relay call, the user must immediately activate an app, otherwise the call may be lost. The party calling the deaf user provides a prefix to connect to the relay center. If the calling party does not use a prefix for the relay call, then the call with not have text relay assistance. In the US for example, with captioned phones the situation is different as users have access to add captioning on the go to incoming and outgoing calls and the other party just handles a regular call without requiring a prefix." Regards Gunnar Den 2021-04-14 kl. 14:05, skrev RealJoshue108:

Thanks @gunnarhm <https://github.com/gunnarhm>. On looking at this in more detail - I think it needs some editorial clarification. For example, the current user need I think it clear enough, and the note is designed to bring attention issues in different domains such as the UK. Are you suggesting updating the note to something like the following?: "Note: Successful design of operations required for acting on incoming calls, getting informed about who the caller is and connecting relay services to the call do not require complicated sequences of user actions. WebRTC may provide a means for such service integration. Examples of situations from integration of traditional mobile telephony and relay services that may find accessible solutions with WebRTC are the following: To successfully receive a relay call, using a mobile app, the deaf user needs to toggle between the app and the handset. If the incoming call is a relay call, the user will immediately activate an app, otherwise the call may be lost. In the UK, the party calling the deaf user provides a prefix to connect to the relay center. If the calling party does not use a prefix for the relay call, then the call with not have text relay assistance. In the US for example, with captioned phones the situation is different as users have access to captioning on the go as the calling party does not need to use a prefix." If so, I'm going to suggest that we may need to state the normal situation and then the exception - how about something like: "Successful design of operations required for acting on incoming calls, getting informed about who the caller is and connecting relay services do not /normally/ require complicated sequences of user actions. There are however examples of situations need integration of traditional mobile telephony and relay services that may be provided using WebRTC : In the UK to successfully receive a relay call, using a mobile app, the deaf user needs to toggle between the app and the handset. If the incoming call is a relay call, the user will immediately activate an app, otherwise the call may be lost. The party calling the deaf user provides a prefix to connect to the relay center. If the calling party does not use a prefix for the relay call, then the call with not have text relay assistance. In the US for example, with captioned phones the situation is different as users have access to captioning on the go as the calling party does not need to use a prefix." Would that work? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <w3c/raur#12>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADEBY5CG7MFHKIMHXV7LFGTTIWAJNANCNFSM42JKODHA>.

-- Gunnar Hellström GHAccess ***@***.***

[RealJoshue108]

"Successful design of operations required for acting on incoming calls, getting informed about who the caller is and connecting relay services should not require complicated sequences of user actions.

Note: There are however examples of current situations which need integration of traditional mobile telephony and relay services that may instead be provided in a more accessible way using WebRTC :

In the UK for example (when this is written in 2021) to successfully receive a relay call, using a mobile app, the deaf user needs to toggle between the relay app and the built-in telephony app. If the incoming call is a relay call, the user must immediately activate an app, otherwise the call may be lost. The party calling the deaf user provides a prefix to connect to the relay center. If the calling party does not use a prefix for the relay call, then the call with not have text relay assistance. In the US for example, with captioned phones the situation is different as users have access to add captioning on the go to incoming and outgoing calls and the other party just handles a regular call without requiring a prefix."

I like this @gunnarhm - I'll add this to the branch. I agree we shouldn't frame the issue as 'normal' or not but really want to get accross that accessing these services is not always straightforward. We do with to include this, if there are aspects of WebRTC that can be engineered to better support the user experience. Thanks

[RealJoshue108]

@gunnarhm In the draft branch, I've made some edits to the note text. I really like the para that says:

"Successful design of operations required for acting on incoming calls, getting informed about who the caller is and connecting relay services should not require complicated sequences of user actions."

So I've added it to 3.4 and also 3.10 Video relay services (VRS) and remote interpretation (VRI) section, as I think it is relevant.

[RealJoshue108]

Added to branch
https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/gunnarhm-edits-to-RAUR/raur/index.html