W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2019

Re: Automated minutes publication

From: Stephen Curran <swcurran@cloudcompass.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:46:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFLTOV5dictHfUe56HVnAz9HL+0hT7WDP4db72Kc9vTYcxiD2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Interesting arguments, and the accessibility is the one that resonates.
Thanks for taking the time to send them.  I'm hoping that you take that
email and put it in a document for others dumb enough to start this
conversation again. If you do, please add what it is that IRC brings to
this vs. any other in-conference chat system (like the one in Zoom, for
example).

I don't see that the "missing" features listed are actual requirements but
rather as ways to keep things working as they have in the good old days.
Even  a queue management protocol is available in Zoom. As long as you come
out of a meeting with a recording (voice and the completely unnecessary :-)
screen sharing), transcript and chat log, each in a non-proprietary format,
you should be good, right? Bonus points if the in-call experience is great.

On the more serious topic of accessibility, I'd be interested in the
feedback of those with real experience. Given that Zoom is a mainstream
tool that people in the software industry today encounter on a daily basis,
and SIP/IRC tools here are unknown to all classes of users other than those
already in this group, which is more accessible? And which is going to be
more accessible tomorrow?

My overall point is that the system is a not insignificant barrier to
participation from a broader populace.

No response needed, we've both made our points. While I would love to see a
change, I'm good to end this discussion on a "we disagree" basis.

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 6:37 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>

-- 

Stephen Curran
Principal, Cloud Compass Computing, Inc. (C3I)
Technical Governance Board Member - Sovrin Foundation (sovrin.org)

*Schedule a Meeting: **https://calendly.com/swcurran
<https://calendly.com/swcurran>*
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2019 17:46:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:19:03 UTC