--On Friday, March 30, 2012 11:34 -0700 SM <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 08:48 30-03-2012, John C Klensin wrote: >> (1) Almost any observation that is based on the advantages of >> slides by non-native speakers also applies to real-time >> minutes, transcripts, Jabber sessions, etc. Done well, any >> or all of them may be easier to understand than a real-time >> speaker, especially one who is speaking too quickly. > > If I recall correctly, a very rough estimate of the cost for > providing real-time transcription of one week of sessions came > to under $10,000. Just so we understand what we are talking about, that means all eight tracks, plus the plenaries? My recollection of how much skilled transcribers can do at a time combined with the length of our day, is that would mean at least 10 and probably 12-15, transcription people. Is that roughly what the figure you give is based on? And does it include airfare and hotels for those people (noting that they would, e.g., outnumber Secretariat staff for the duration of a meeting. > Advantages are: > > (a) The discussions are more accessible for non-English > (local and remote) participants > > (b) Local participants in another session can follow what > is going on > > (c) The transcript can be used to produce minutes for the > session > > (d) The transcript can be read by people who have not > attended the session > > (e) The transcript can be (easily) translated by the reader > > (f) It does not require an additional screen It does if people who are in the room want to see the transcript. Experience at multiple IETF plenaries and several other organizations (including ICANN) indicates that they usually do. The other advantage of transcripts is that they can be used by folks who don't hear well. If they are in the room, that certainly requires an extra screen, at least unless you expect that population to all bring laptops and spend their time hunched over them. > (g) A minute-taker is no longer required > > (h) Less pressure to upload slides before the session I don't think so. For non-native speakers of whatever language the speakers are speaking, ability to review slides in advance is a big help. > (i) The content of a session is searchable > > Disadvantages are: > > (a) It is not always possible for the person transcribing > to capture > the name of the speaker or some technical words If the speaker doesn't speak English really clearly, or speaks it very quickly, or both, the quality of transcription can easily fall below the level needed to make the above advantages real. In that case, the problem is not just speaker names and technical words > (b) It's an additional cost > > (c) There can be network connectivity issues > > (d) There may be an indirect negative impact on attendance > revenue > > (e) It may be workable for regular meetings only > > (f) The content of a session is searchable >... best, john _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
