Browse Prior Art Database

Smart Alert Time Clash Mechanism for Instant Messaging

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000199089D
Publication Date: 2010-Aug-25
Document File: 2 page(s) / 25K

Publishing Venue

The IP.com Prior Art Database

Abstract

Alert instant messaging users to messages they may have otherwise missed, due to message time conflicts.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 52% of the total text.

Page 1 of 2

Smart Alert Time Clash Mechanism for Instant Messaging

The problem addressed by this concept is where two instant messages are sent at more-or-less the same time, but only the last message sent really gets prominence. This can lead to the sender of the last message missing the message of the other user.

For example, there are two users chatting over instant messaging, userA and userB. Here is the conversation the users are having (keep note of the time on the right hand side column):

________________________________________________

userA: I think a holiday abroad would be nice. 12:00:00 userB: Yes, I think so too 12:00:10 userA: I'd love to go to Spain 12:00:20 userB: Where would you like to go? 12:00:20

________________________________________________

Notice that the last two messages appear at the exact same time. This can often lead to confusion.

First, userB may not see userA's message. In a lot of instant messaging clients, the chat window flashes (to draw attention) for userB when userA sends a message. This flashing stops after either focus is given to the window by userB, or when userB responds. In the case above, userA's message occurs just fractions of a second before userB's message. Therefore it is listed as the second last message sent in the chat history, and userA's chat window flashes. However, userB's window does not flash because a few fractions after userB received the chat message, userB replied. This isn't enough time for userB to realize that a message was sent by userA.

Now this

As can be seen here there has been a duplication of effort on the part of both users...