W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Recording teleconferences?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:24:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4A86FD73.8080808@malform.no>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Vicki Stanton <vicki.stanton@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren On 09-08-15 19.10:

> 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. 


That was for sure not meant to be a sour statement. It is IMHO a 
necessary thing to be clear about.

One could also imagine those transcripts (especially!) be 
scrutinized very well whenever there were some controversy. It is 
better to give that situation an forethought rather than an 
afterthought. (I think Sam already said something about it.)

The decision about making recordings should clear and announced, 
so that any participant is aware the fact.

> 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. 


I did not hear anyone require this from you. The W3C, however, has 
a policy to require this from itself.

> 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.


At least, for there to be transcripts, there must first be 
recordings.

> (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. 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.)


WCAG is a specification - not a policy. The policy is the 
responsibility of the government. Accessibility requirements is 
however not only a burden, it also create jobs, for instance. As 
well as interesting technical problems.

Btw, this to me proves that there often needs to be an interregnum 
between the point of publishing a document - and the point of 
declaring it for accessible. It may take time (and time is money) 
to add the transcript. Just as it may take time to add alternative 
text to images.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 18:25:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT