RE: Recording teleconferences?

[John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program]

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> Vicki Stanton wrote:
> > It does seem to me,
> > however, that we should be enthusiastically leading the way, not be
> > dragged kicking and screaming into compliance with W3C policy.
>
> Initially it was a question whether the W3C Systems Team could manage
> it. When it turned out I or someone else could easily do the recording
> it became a social and legal problem.

In a world beyond technology, respect for privacy and human dignity are not
'problems', they are social ideals that help hold together the notion of
civilization.  Both of these 'problems' are easily overcome if they are seen
as simply things that we must do, rather than 'extra work' or a burden to
progress.

Asking a person if it is OK to record their words and publicly post them
over the internet is not a problem, it is a simple yes/no question - and if
they choose no, then they are advised to not speak as collectively the group
has decided they will publicly post the proceedings.  Providing a text
transcript is neither hard nor expensive, and it respects the fact that not
everyone can hear the proceedings. It has the added benefit of being more
easily translated, it is archived and easily indexed for search, and it aids
in overall comprehension for all.

You see problems, I see possibilities and opportunities.


> And now I'm being told that in
> order to publish that data I first have to find some money source that
> donates USD 80 each week to get the minutes transcribed. The result of
> all this negative energy is of course that it will not happen at all
> and nobody gets any better. I think that's a shame.

I do not see how insisting on equal access for all is 'negative energy' -
why do you consider it so?

* Apple: 2008 revenue report of $7.9 billion USD
(http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/10/21results.html )
* Google: 2008 net income was $1.31 billion USD
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/technology/17cnd-google.html )
* Mozilla: reported 2007 revenue: $75 million USD
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation )
* Opera: 2008 Net income (approx) $14.75 million USD [NOK 89.9 million]
(http://www.opera.com/media/finance/2008/annual-report-english.pdf)

Transcription: 52 X approx $80.00 USD = $4160.00 / year (to serve a global
audience - pricing based upon http://tinyurl.com/oey8so - it may actually be
slightly more or slightly less)


(JF wonders aloud how much it costs each of the above companies to hand out
promotional T-Shirts each year...)

Anne, I offered to pay the first recorded session from my own pocket.  Would
you pay the second one?  And who, following this thread, will step forward
and pay the third?  If we collectively cannot find a sponsor for this
important contribution, then we should find a means to do it ourselves.
Continually it is driven home that this is a 'can-do' working group that
wants a more accessible web.  Blues legend Albert King once wrote: "Everyone
wants to go to Heaven, nobody wants to die".  So, who else will cough up $80
and put their money where their mouth is?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3hn6fFTxeo

>
>
> (I also think this is a problem with WCAG. Once it gets more and more
> into government regulation data will just be hold back because it
> becomes too costly to publish.

And so the solution is to simply ignore those people who cannot hear? To bar
them from active participation simply because we need an accurate
transcript?  Anne, have you really thought about this at all?  Seriously?


> I was a in Dutch government media
> related meeting a little over a month ago and apparently there's a 100x
> increase in cost in getting already recorded videos accessible. In not
> so many words it was stated that if things actually became required it
> would just mean that a bunch of data would get lost. That would be
> terrible in my opinion.)

Accepting that it is OK to discriminate against people simply because of
their disability is even more terrible in my opinion.  And in many countries
around the world, it is, in fact, criminal.

As long as you continue to see this as a 'problem' it will be a problem: the
moment you see it as a solvable challenge a solution will emerge.

That we must still have this discussion with highly intelligent people in
2009 is extremely sad.

JF

[rubys]

John Foliot wrote:

> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Vicki Stanton wrote:
>>> It does seem to me,
>>> however, that we should be enthusiastically leading the way, not be
>>> dragged kicking and screaming into compliance with W3C policy.
>> Initially it was a question whether the W3C Systems Team could manage
>> it. When it turned out I or someone else could easily do the recording
>> it became a social and legal problem.
>
> In a world beyond technology, respect for privacy and human dignity are not
> 'problems', they are social ideals that help hold together the notion of
> civilization.  Both of these 'problems' are easily overcome if they are seen
> as simply things that we must do, rather than 'extra work' or a burden to
> progress.
>
> Asking a person if it is OK to record their words and publicly post them
> over the internet is not a problem, it is a simple yes/no question - and if
> they choose no, then they are advised to not speak as collectively the group
> has decided they will publicly post the proceedings.  Providing a text
> transcript is neither hard nor expensive, and it respects the fact that not
> everyone can hear the proceedings. It has the added benefit of being more
> easily translated, it is archived and easily indexed for search, and it aids
> in overall comprehension for all.
>
> You see problems, I see possibilities and opportunities.
>
>> And now I'm being told that in
>> order to publish that data I first have to find some money source that
>> donates USD 80 each week to get the minutes transcribed. The result of
>> all this negative energy is of course that it will not happen at all
>> and nobody gets any better. I think that's a shame.
>
> I do not see how insisting on equal access for all is 'negative energy' -
> why do you consider it so?
>
> * Apple: 2008 revenue report of $7.9 billion USD
> (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/10/21results.html )
> * Google: 2008 net income was $1.31 billion USD
> (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/technology/17cnd-google.html )
> * Mozilla: reported 2007 revenue: $75 million USD
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation )
> * Opera: 2008 Net income (approx) $14.75 million USD [NOK 89.9 million]
> (http://www.opera.com/media/finance/2008/annual-report-english.pdf)
>
> Transcription: 52 X approx $80.00 USD = $4160.00 / year (to serve a global
> audience - pricing based upon http://tinyurl.com/oey8so - it may actually be
> slightly more or slightly less)
>
>
> (JF wonders aloud how much it costs each of the above companies to hand out
> promotional T-Shirts each year...)
>
> Anne, I offered to pay the first recorded session from my own pocket.  Would
> you pay the second one?  And who, following this thread, will step forward
> and pay the third?  If we collectively cannot find a sponsor for this
> important contribution, then we should find a means to do it ourselves.
> Continually it is driven home that this is a 'can-do' working group that
> wants a more accessible web.  Blues legend Albert King once wrote: "Everyone
> wants to go to Heaven, nobody wants to die".  So, who else will cough up $80
> and put their money where their mouth is?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3hn6fFTxeo
>
>> (I also think this is a problem with WCAG. Once it gets more and more
>> into government regulation data will just be hold back because it
>> becomes too costly to publish.
>
> And so the solution is to simply ignore those people who cannot hear? To bar
> them from active participation simply because we need an accurate
> transcript?  Anne, have you really thought about this at all?  Seriously?
>
>> I was a in Dutch government media
>> related meeting a little over a month ago and apparently there's a 100x
>> increase in cost in getting already recorded videos accessible. In not
>> so many words it was stated that if things actually became required it
>> would just mean that a bunch of data would get lost. That would be
>> terrible in my opinion.)
>
> Accepting that it is OK to discriminate against people simply because of
> their disability is even more terrible in my opinion.  And in many countries
> around the world, it is, in fact, criminal.
>
> As long as you continue to see this as a 'problem' it will be a problem: the
> moment you see it as a solvable challenge a solution will emerge.
>
> That we must still have this discussion with highly intelligent people in
> 2009 is extremely sad.

Ironically, I believe that *this very* email thread is a prime example
of how email is a less than ideal medium for coming to consensus.  John,
please reread the above sentence and tell me if that is typical of the
way you talk when you are face to face with an individual, or is closer
to the type of polemics that you would place into a speech addressed to
an "audience".

Let me remind people that last month we had a discussion[1] when *gasp*
it was noticed that the editor was routinely having discussions which
not only weren't transcribed, they not only weren't recorded, they
weren't even public.

I will make a confession.  I, too, have had discussions that weren't
transcribed, recorded, or public.  And I will further confess that I
found some of them to be useful.

I plan to be accessible.  I don't mean to be in the narrow technical
sense that that word as it is used in the W3C, I mean that in the wider
sense of being approachable and reachable.

I encourage people to copy www-archive or public-html when they send
email to me.  If people wish to record my conversations and share them
with others, all I ask is that people let everybody know what they are
doing up front.  Similarly, I encourage people to take and publish
transcripts.

If it turns out that the W3C's provision of access to a bridge comes
with a stipulation that prevents any of the above, then I will simply
make myself available at other times of the week.

Anne: if there is a time that works for you, let me know.  I'm not
currently enrolled with skype, but will gladly do so myself if that
means that conversations can reach more people.

> JF

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0108.html

[John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program]

Sam Ruby wrote:

>> That we must still have this discussion with highly intelligent people
>> in
>> 2009 is extremely sad.
>
> John,
> please reread the above sentence and tell me if that is typical of the
> way you talk when you are face to face with an individual, or is closer
> to the type of polemics that you would place into a speech addressed to
> an "audience".

I actually turned to a colleague yesterday and said, "I can't believe we are
still having this discussion...", so yes Sam, I would - if I were sitting
across a coffee table from Anne, I would likely say something very similar
as well.  I am truly astonished (and deeply saddened) that we are debating a
person's right to access to public data, and that it is being held up as a
barrier to progress - all for the cost of an $80.00 transcript.  Instead of
people writing to ask "how" can we overcome this 'problem', we instead get
notes asking 'why' and stating:

"... In not so many words [it was stated that if things actually became
required] it would just mean that a bunch of data would get lost." (Anne van
Kesteren)

"... However, if creating a transcript is not possible for financial
reasons, then that reduces our options to either publish recordings without
transcript, or publish nothing. Out of those two options I think publish
recordings is better." (Jonas Sicking)

I am sorry if what I said is seen as being polemic, but it is and was said
with genuine sincerity on my part - it *is* sad that neither of those two
authors see the 'wrongness" of what they suggested (and that many others
agree with them).

>
> Let me remind people that last month we had a discussion[1] when *gasp*
> it was noticed that the editor was routinely having discussions which
> not only weren't transcribed, they not only weren't recorded, they
> weren't even public.
>
> I will make a confession.  I, too, have had discussions that weren't
> transcribed, recorded, or public.  And I will further confess that I
> found some of them to be useful.

I think here you are missing the point.  Private conversations are just
that, private.  They may in fact affect "business" as we are conducting it
here, but that does not grant them the status of 'always public'.

Publishing the record of a publicly held teleconference however is a
different matter.  The minutes from that teleconference are a matter of
public record, as is the IRC transcript.  Both of those 'recordings' are
equally available to all, in an equitable fashion. If, in the interest of
better public comprehension, an audio recording is made publicly available,
then it too should be made in an equitable way - which today means that we
should provide a transcript.  In a global, public organization such as W3C,
we should be beyond having that debate, yet here we are, wondering where the
next $80.00 will be coming from and debating if we *really* must have the
transcript before posting an audio recording.

And I can't be sad about that?

>
> I plan to be accessible.  I don't mean to be in the narrow technical
> sense that that word as it is used in the W3C, I mean that in the wider
> sense of being approachable and reachable.

...and you have already proven that to me in person.  It is not a question
of access to the process, it is a question of access to the data.  Sam,
please re-read Vicki's contribution to this thread - she said it in a much
more eloquent way than I can, although I will quote her:

"This difficulty, ... may not seem like a big deal to many of the WG
members, but it's isolating and frustrating in the extreme for intelligent
professionals who feel they have a lot to offer - if they could just know
what's going on!"

[ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0777.html ]

>
> I encourage people to copy www-archive or public-html when they send
> email to me.  If people wish to record my conversations and share them
> with others, all I ask is that people let everybody know what they are
> doing up front.  Similarly, I encourage people to take and publish
> transcripts.

Me too.

And I've put my name on the bottom line - I will pay for the first
transcript of a weekly recorded teleconference to get the ball rolling,
because I also believe that actions speak much louder than words.

And if that makes me Polemic, then I will add that to the list of attributes
I have already been saddled with.

JF

[Maciej Stachowiak]

On Aug 15, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hi John and Anne,
>
> John wrote:
>> Anne, I offered to pay the first recorded session from my own pocket.
>
> Anne, I will pay $80 for a session. Why don't you us up on the offer
> and see how it goes?
>
> Dan, is there a proper channel to ask member W3C organizations if they
> are interested in supporting this project?  It couldn't hurt to ask.
>
> Matt suggested contacting Judy Brewer regarding having WAI to do the
> transcription. Anne, we could email her too, if that would be helpful.

I think it would be best to ask WAI if they can do the transcription.  
I think passing the hat around the working group is not the way this  
should work, although the offers from you and John are appreciated.  
It's the W3C's responsibility as an institution to ensure that its own  
public content (including Working Group proceedings) is accessible.

I note also that your email comes off as a lot more positive than some  
emails on this subject. Here are two hypothetical messages that say  
similar things but make very different impressions:

(A) "It's a good idea to have audio recordings of the telecons. If we  
do that, we should also find a way to provide full transcripts."

(B) "You can't post audio recordings of the telecons without  
transcripts."

I hope you can see how (A) comes off as helpful, while (B) can be  
perceived as negative energy. I'm not saying anyone said exactly (A)  
or (B). But let's keep this kind of difference in mind. We wouldn't  
want to create the misleading impression that accessibility is about  
preventing information sharing. Instead, accessibility is about  
sharing more information in more forms. After all, none of the WCAG  
techniques give "don't publish this information at all" as an option.

Regards,
Maciej