Re: Automated minutes publication

On 11/16/19 5:15 PM, Stephen Curran wrote:
> Yup - I know you've had to deal with that question before - my 
> apologizes.  I just can't figure out the motivation to stay with 
> this. So two more questions, if you would indulge me:
> 
> 1.  What part of the service must be open source?

Ideally, all of it. Or at least it should use open standards for all
parts. The issue is vendor lock in. A number of years ago, Skype was all
the rage and we were having this same discussion. Now it's Zoom. The
issue is that some poor sap has to write the software and when people
decide to jump from one proprietary vendor to another, all of the
software needs to be rewritten to match the new proprietary APIs.

> From that list, Zoom (and others) does all that except it's not open
>  source.

Ehh, Zoom also doesn't do the following things on the list:

* Bridges to IRC for control
* Does queue management
* Automatically records/archives/uploads IRC logs

It's just a simple matter of programming to write something that does
those things and integrates into Zoom... and of course, someone would
have to volunteer to pick up the cost for the Zoom account to host/run
the meetings. Digital Bazaar has been doing that for the past decade or
so, and we'd welcome someone else picking up the maintenance and
operations costs :).

So, if someone would like to put in the work (and pick up the cost), I'm
sure the group might consider it... especially since we have a fall back
solution now w/ PBX/SIP/IRC. In the very worst case, we can fall back to
what we're doing today (which is why I think Zoom could be an option).

> The functions listed would be done slightly differently in some 
> cases, but every one of them is supported today. After the recording 
> and chat log is captured and put into github, etc. does the call 
> management system matter?

It does, and I'll explain why below.

> 2. When is the existing system going to be upgraded to support
> screen sharing?
> 
> I suspect that might take even longer to the existing system than 
> adding the features you list. I'm certain that eventually, the need 
> for that feature will overcome the argument against staying with the 
> current system.

I don't find screen sharing that compelling of a feature. Yes, super
useful for demos, sharing slide decks, etc... but most of the decisions
made in the standards realm don't require screen sharing... I mean, we
built the Internet and Web to where it is today without screen sharing.

I will grant that it's useful every now and then, but keep in mind that
Adrian's recent presentation to the group was just as easily
accomplished by sharing the slide deck before the call (which is good
form so that everyone has a copy) and then going through it calling out
slide numbers so folks can go at their own pace.

> I gather this is a W3C requirement?

Since we're a Community Group, we can run the calls however we'd like as
long as we're keeping the IPR clean.

That said, there is one argument against Zoom that isn't easily cast
aside... and that is that what you're suggesting we use it for
marginalizes people with accessibility needs.

The reason we largely use open standards and text to communicate is that
it's easily converted into forms that people with accessibility needs
can use to engage. Text to speech is vital for people that can't see,
and multi-modal presentations are so incredibly challenging when you
can't see but can hear, or you can't hear, but you can see.

To help illustrate the problem, the next time someone starts screen
sharing, shut your monitor off and just listen to what they're saying...
and then interrupt them every time they try to convey something by
highlighting the screen, or circling a part of the screen with their
mouse, or saying "so, as you can see on the left...". Your desire to
interrupt, or just stay silent and see if you can figure out what
they're saying with other context, will lead to a certain uneasiness
leaving you at a disadvantage wrt. the discussion.

... and that's the real problem with screen sharing... it lacks
affordances and metadata that's necessary to make it accessible to
people with certain accessibility needs.

The Web is for all, and W3C has a mandate to ensure that it builds and
uses systems that are broadly accessible. That means using open
standards and making accessibility mandatory.

I haven't heard the W3C Accessible Platform Architectures WG take on
using Zoom for screen sharing at W3C meetings, but if you're game for
proposing it, I'll bring my popcorn along for the show. :P

So, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that suggesting that we use a
proprietary system with questionable accessibility characteristics and a
mode of communication that marginalizes certain people with
accessibility needs is unlikely to be seen in a positive light by folks
that are trying to build an open Web for all.

"""
The power of the Web is in its universality.
Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.
"""

-- Tim Berners-Lee

"""
Access to information and communications technologies, including the
Web, is a basic human right.
"""

-- UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

https://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches

Received on Sunday, 17 November 2019 02:35:50 UTC