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

Thank you, Josh, and I concur with Scottís analysis.

From: Joshue O Connor <>
Date: Monday, May 25, 2020 at 05:40
To: Scott Hollier <>
Cc: Sajka, Janina <>, <>, <>, <>
Subject: 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.



Scott Hollier<>
Monday 25 May 2020 07:41
To Janina

Iíve been giving some thought to this and Iím not sure that thereís an issue of on-the-record and off-the-record beyond the audio equivalent.

Hereís my thinking:

If thereís a teleconference, there is an expectation that the audio will not be recorded unless itís 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 donít see thereíd be a need to stop the captions, as the audio equivalent would not stop, it just wouldnítí 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 thatís 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 Iíd say itís the similar risk of someone recording a snippet of audio

Thatís my two cents anyway!


[Scott Hollier logo]Dr Scott Hollier
Digital Access Specialist
Mobile: +61 (0)430 351 909

Technology for everyone

Keep up with digital access news by following @scotthollier on Twitter<> and subscribing to Scottís newsletter<>.

From: Sajka, Janina <><>
Sent: Friday, 22 May 2020 5:17 AM
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 whoís deaf or hearing impaired?

  *   There are likely some legal constraints that we will have to clearly note and say ďwe donít do that, we just do technology.Ē

  *   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 thereís no such thing as off record conversation when captioning is made available?

OK. I wanted to make sure this got to our consideration.



From: Jeanne Spellman <<>>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 12:20 PM
To: Makoto Ueki <<>>;<>
Cc: Shawn Lauriat <<>>; Jennifer Chadwick <<>>; David Fazio <<>>; Dirks, Kim (TR Product) <<>>; Michael Cooper <<>>; Silver TF <<>>
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.

On 5/12/2020 9:33 PM, Makoto Ueki wrote:

Emerging Web Technology Specialist/Accessibility (WAI/W3C)


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.


Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2020 18:22:28 UTC