Re: telecons, IRC, & chat--none of 'em are perfect (was: AU charter2 or something similar)

On stardate 18 Sep 2000, Gregory J. Rosmaita sent a subspace communication stating:

> in responding to frank, love wrote:
>
     That's Fred, not Frank. :-)

> quote
> I withdraw my objection. Perhaps all fora could investigate the possibility of a
> "chat" format to supplement the telecons and possibly make F2Fs less frequently
> required? unquote
> 
> i can't believe what i'm hearing -- i for one object to such a strategy on the
> strongest possible terms, despite frank's defence of IRC and chat...
> 
> first of all, it shouldn't be an either-or proposition -- teleconferences 
> could, and probably should, be supplemented by focused IRC sessions 
> (sub-committees, formal or informal working on specific techniques, etc.), but
> quarterly face2face meetings serve a very valuable purpose, and as AU and UA
> have repeatedly shown, can be extremely effective fora for getting a tremendous
> amount of work done in a short period of time, as well as refocusing the WG's
> concentration on long-outstanding issues, as well as fostering (and justifying)
> both the "working" and the "group" components of phrase "working group"
>
     No one ever said it was an "either or" proposition. I was just thinking 
given some of the phone noise problems we've had on occasion, it might be 
better to try something else once in awhile. And I personally never thought of 
suggesting this as a "replacement" for F2F meetings.

> in a post on this topic, charles noted:
> 
> quote
> There has been from time to time a possibility of having one or more 
> participants who are deaf or hard of hearing. The two options available are to
> use a relay service, or for the working group to try out this method. unquote
> 
> before you jump to such a conclusion, would you please ping some deaf 
> individuals, particularly those involved in international consortia *not 
> exclusively concerned with the issues surrounding deafness and hearing 
> loss*, to ascertain whether or not a telecon would absolutely preclude 
> their participation?  would not a deaf individual or someone with a 
> profound hearing loss not typically have a TTY (teletypewriter) device at 
> their disposal?  while i've never used such a device myself, and, hence, 
> don't know how it handles party lines/conference calls, it's entire purpose is
> to enable the deaf and hard of hearing to use the phone to communicate...  there
> are also voice relay systems for the "speech-impaired", so that those who are
> incapable of vocalization can still use the phone to communicate, and i strongly
> believe that it is incumbent upon the W3C (and not just the WAI) to ensure that
> *ALL* of the bridges used for W3C telecons incorporate relay systems that are
> compatible with both TTY and voice relay systems...
>
     As far as I know, TTY requires both ends of the conversation to have one. 
Someone would have to type in on one end, and read back what the person wrote 
on the other. It would be doable on a teleconference, but unless someone 
volunteers to do this, it'll cost someone some money somewhere. Same thing with 
voice relay. An online chat eliminates the middle man, as it were.

> no one should be forced into choosing between a telecon or IRC sessions -- both
> have their merits and drawbacks, but as someone who has attended HWG town
> meetings, as well as IRC sessions held by other fora, including disability
> groups, i'd not only vote against any supplanting of one medium of intragroup
> communication over another, but to supplant telecons by IRC or some other
> chat-type interface would be a draconian decision, inconsistent with the WAI's
> mandate to ensure that it provides a forum where the opinions of all persons who
> have been invited or assigned to participate in the endeavor can be aired and
> received by all, and substituting IRC or a chat facility for a telecon doesn't
> qualify...
> 
     No system is perfect, and use of one over another inevitably discriminates 
against someone at some time. My problem is F2F meetings. I can't travel, so I 
can't attend any of those. But they're only quarterly, so my non-attendance 
isn't a problem (I hope, anyway). In that vein, we might want to consider chat 
conferences instead of telephone as a once in awhile thing. Maybe one meeting a 
month, or every third meeting. Certainly no more than every other meeting, for 
the reason's Gregory has outlined. But I do think we should try it at least.


Frederick J. Barnett                  http://www.eatel.net/~fred/
E-mail: fred@eatel.net
Member: HWG Governing Board & Secretary
http://www.hwg.org/

Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2000 15:28:29 UTC