Costs and clear guidance [was: Recording teleconferences?]

Anne van Kesteren mentioned
>>  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.

Matt May responded

> Who would
> believe a 100x increase in effort for media accessibility?

Actually, in some circumstances, I would.  And I can certainly
believe it is a frequent bogeyman.  It may be worth a note
from the PFWG with some guidance on what level of quality
is required, and perhaps even pointers to a list of possible

For example, these "already recorded videos" may be
recorded automatically by an unmanned camera (or by
volunteers, or by school kids looking for experience) so
that the only marginal cost is the indexing (as simple as
"copy to filename yyyy-mm-dd under directory
planning-commision/video/") and the bandwidth.

Getting a transcript may well require a process designed
for legal transcripts, because that was probably the only
use considered back when the procedure was originally

The apparent costs might change if the PFWG were to
say something like:

Automated speech-to-text programs are not sufficient in
general, but are adequate to provide a first draft.  These
automated transcripts should be verified and corrected
with the same level of attention used to edit the original

In some cases, where raw video is posted without review,
this may even mean no extra attention.

If a responsible person pre-screens the video
for appropriateness before posting, then a similarly
responsible person should read through the transcript
and make corrections.

If the video is carefully edited with retakes for problematic
portions, then the transcript should be carefully proof-read.


Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 13:55:43 UTC