- From: Joshue O Connor <joconnor@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 10:40:26 +0100
- To: Scott Hollier <scott@hollier.info>
- Cc: "Sajka, Janina" <sajkaj@amazon.com>, "public-rqtf@w3.org" <public-rqtf@w3.org>, "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>, "jspellman@jspellmanconsulting.com" <jspellman@jspellmanconsulting.com>
- Message-ID: <475d3bb8-e297-a161-91b7-06396b522110@w3.org>
Hi all, This is a useful thread. To enable better visability etc - I've added this thread/discussion to Github, and labelled it RAUR. Thanks Josh > Scott Hollier <mailto:scott@hollier.info> > Monday 25 May 2020 07:41 > > To Janina > > I’ve been giving some thought to this and I’m not sure that there’s an > issue of on-the-record and off-the-record beyond the audio equivalent. > > Here’s my thinking: > > If there’s a teleconference, there is an expectation that the audio > will not be recorded unless it’s specifically agreed to. Likewise the > captions provided would not be recorded, i.e. not saved as a > transcript or screen captured, unless previously agreed to. > > If there is agreement of the audio to be recorded, discussion would be > on the record. Likewise the saving of captions would be on the record. > > If someone wants to discuss something off-the-record, either the audio > or captions would be suspended for that portion of the meeting. Once > back on the record, audio and captions would be saved. I don’t see > there’d be a need to stop the captions, as the audio equivalent would > not stop, it just wouldn’t’ be recorded. > > So I think the solution to toggle between on- and off-the-record > conversations is not about the presence or removal of captions, but to > make sure that the toggle between saving recordings also applies to > the saving of captions, i.e.. a mechanism that both audio and captions > can be paused or stopped, and both can be simultaneously restored for > recording. If there are formal minutes taken for a meeting that’s > on-the-record, then neither the audio or captions would be saved so no > issue there. > > There is always the risk of someone taking a screen capture as you > say, but I’d say it’s the similar risk of someone recording a snippet > of audio > > That’s my two cents anyway! > > Scott. > > Scott Hollier logo*Dr Scott Hollier * > > Digital Access Specialist > > Mobile: +61 (0)430 351 909 > > Web: www.hollier.info <http://www.hollier.info/> > > Technology for everyone > > Keep up with digital access news by following @scotthollier on Twitter > <https://twitter.com/scotthollier>and subscribing to Scott’s > newsletter <mailto:newsletter@hollier.info?subject=subscribe>. > > *From:*Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com> > *Sent:* Friday, 22 May 2020 5:17 AM > *To:* public-rqtf@w3.org > *Cc:* janina@rednote.net; jspellman@jspellmanconsulting.com > *Subject:* Forwarded from the Silver listFW: Captioning Zoom Calls > [was: Re: Agenda for Silver meeting of Tuesday, 12 May 2020] > > RQTF Colleagues: > > Forwarding an email from my other W3C identity because it contains a > requirement we might want to consider for our RTC requirements as well > as for our telecommunications guidance. > > The interesting requirement wrinkle is the notion of on record vs. off > record conversations. > > * People have always done things like that on W3C calls; and side > conversations are standard human behavior. But how to serve the > person who’s deaf or hearing impaired? > > * There are likely some legal constraints that we will have to > clearly note and say “we don’t do that, we just do technology.” > > * I imagine the a11y requirement is some kind of host operable > toggle in the captioning service (whether human or automated) that > facilitates going on and off record for the preserved transcript, > but continues to provide captions meanwhile. > > * And, the above toggle can be defeated by any participant > performing a screen capture. So, does that mean there’s no such > thing as off record conversation when captioning is made available? > > OK. I wanted to make sure this got to our consideration. > > Best, > > Janina > > *From:*Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com > <mailto:jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>> > *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 12:20 PM > *To:* Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com > <mailto:makoto.ueki@gmail.com>>; lucy@accessaces.com > <mailto:lucy@accessaces.com> > *Cc:* Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com <mailto:lauriat@google.com>>; > Jennifer Chadwick <jcha@siteimprove.com > <mailto:jcha@siteimprove.com>>; David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com > <mailto:dfazio@helixopp.com>>; Dirks, Kim (TR Product) > <kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com > <mailto:kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com>>; Michael Cooper > <cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>>; Silver TF > <public-silver@w3.org <mailto:public-silver@w3.org>> > *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] Captioning Zoom Calls [was: Re: Agenda for > Silver meeting of Tuesday, 12 May 2020] > > *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender > and know the content is safe. > > I think we all agree that captioning would be helpful for meeting > attendees. I certainly would appreciate and use it myself, as I find > reading less fatiguing than listening. > > However, we presently don't have an a disability accommodation > request. It is more difficult to find funding for captioning without > an accommodation request. I would be delighted to have people with > hearing disabilities participate in the group. It is a chicken-and-egg > problem, because people don't want to participate unless they have an > accommodation. > > Captions would not replace IRC, however. Captions would not provide > an archived meeting record, which we need by W3C advice to working > groups. And I don't think we should dismiss that need. On many many > occasions, I have searched the W3C archives for meeting minutes. We > also would not want the official meeting minutes to be the result of > captions, as it would preclude any casual or confidential conversation > that we did not want in the permanent record. I personally would find > it exhausting to "always be on the record". IRC minutes are intended > to be more of a summary of main points than everything that is said. > > There are two problems (as I understand it): > > * Finding a free captioning service or autocaptioning service, or > finding a captioning service that a W3C member company was willing > to pay for. > * Setting up someone in the group as a "host" to be able to start > the service each meeting. > > These are both solvable problems. If anyone knows of a free > auto-captioning service, or works for a company that has a pro Zoom > membership and a relationship with a captioning company that would be > willing to include our Zoom calls as part of the service, please let > me know. Michael is working on the "host" problem from the W3C end. > I have looked at several "free captioning services" and the ones I > have seen are attached to a commitment to the provider of the captions > for other paid services. I am happy to be wrong about this, if anyone > knows of one. > > W3C is experimenting with captioning for a few meetings. I don't know > how the funding was arranged for the meetings, but I am watching the > results. So the other option we have is to wait and see what W3C > decides to do and how it will be paid for. But until something else > is decided within W3C, and lacking an accommodation request, we will > need to pursue solutions ourselves. > > I have been searching the Zoom site and have not found auto-captioning > as a service they provide. Again, I would love to be wrong about that. > > jeanne > > On 5/12/2020 9:33 PM, Makoto Ueki wrote: > -- Emerging Web Technology Specialist/Accessibility (WAI/W3C)
Received on Monday, 25 May 2020 09:40:34 UTC