Re: Forwarded from the Silver list W: Captioning Zoom Calls [was: Re: Agenda for Silver meeting of Tuesday, 12 May 2020]

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)