Hello John, I personally fins your points from 1 to 5 definitely reasonable, as well ad technically feasible. Point 6 would probably deserve some more in-depth discussion.
Simon > On 12 Apr 2016, at 12:51, John C Klensin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Coming back to part of this and dropping the tools list... > > --On Friday, April 08, 2016 15:42 +0200 Meetecho IETF support > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ... >>> Sometimes doing a refresh loses the room information and it >>> prompts for a room name. Huh? And the prompts look really >>> messed up on my screen, with the button on top of the input >>> textbox. >> >> By design, you should be redirected to the same login page you >> used to join in the first place, and it should remember >> whatever you put in there automatically. If that's not always >> working as expected, it's a bug ad we'll have to look into >> that. You're probably ending up in a login page that actually >> forgot part of that info (e.g., the WG you were following), >> which uses a different layout. >> >>> After typing in the registration number, there is a >>> background load of your saved picture, AND a very annoying >>> expansion of the area above the name to display the saved >>> picture or placeholder picture. The reason it's annoying is >>> that when you're trying to log in (or RE-login quickly to >>> avoid missing more of the meeting), the check boxes are >>> moving around the screen right when you're trying to click >>> them, you're chasing them around the screen and losing time >>> waiting for them to settle down. > >> Ack, we'll need to fix that. The avatar feature is a brand new >> one we just added for the meeting here in BA, so there are >> indeed improvements that are needed on the user experience >> there. > >>> Relaunching the window from agenda starts all over from the >>> very beginning login screen. If you previously clicked >>> "remember my login info", it fills in the name and >>> registration info. But you still need to re-click the buttons >>> acknowledging the note well. I also click "remember my login >>> info" again "just in case". It seems like this scenario could >>> be streamlined better when you're re-logging in to an >>> on-going session and you're trying to miss as little as >>> possible. > >> Makes sense, and I guessthe "Note well" part is particularly >> annoying as it prevents you to join if unchecked. If you >> checked it once, you did confirm you read it, and we should >> remember that as well. > > This may be aspirational, i.e., a target rather than something I > expect you to be able to do all of, all at once, but... > > My expectation in a more perfect world that [still] requires > IETF registration and sign-on using a registration number is > that > > (1) You would consult the IAOC and, if needed, IETF Counsel, but > remember that, if one has registered for the IETF meeting, one > has already seen and acknowledged the Note Well. If doing so > the week of the event is needed or if someone is logging in as > an observer (in which case they may be claiming to be > not-Participants and not Contributing anyway), see below. > Otherwise, the checkbox is just clutter and unnecessary > bureaucracy. > > (2) I'm a lot more concerned with participants and efficiency > for them than I am above [passive] observers. I'm willing to > have a "remember me" checkbox for observers but, if some of the > following inconveniences them, that seems a minor price to pay. > An observer who is sufficiently inconvenienced can always sign > up, especially as long as the remote participant registration > fee is zero or nominal. > > (3) During the course of an IETF week (or other set of related > meetings within a short period), I expect to register in the > sense of giving you my name, registration number, assurances > that I've seen and understood the Note Well, preference for > participant versus observer, picture or avatar, etd., a maximum > of one time. "Remember me for the duration" or "Remember me > until..." should probably be the default with "don't remember, I > want to be bothered every time to add some marginal privacy" > available as an option. A "settings" mechanism for changing any > of those things should be available, but it shouldn't be > intrusive. I expect that single registration to work even if I > switch machines. If you have to give me a special token or > unique "log in again, maybe from the different place" URL that > is fine, but the idea should be for me to register once and > thereafter only go through a quick re-validation or > re-authentication process, not be forced to supply all of the > prior information. > > (4) In particular, while I hope restarting sessions will become > much more rare, there should be no circumstances in which a > restart within a given WG meeting requires reentering > registration information, much less reconfirming > participant/observer status, acknowledging the Note Well, being > asked to supply a picture, etc. > > (5) As Dave Crocker has explained in much more detail than my > original comment about the Jabber aspect of the situation did, > precipitous shutting down of a session in a way that loses > information is not acceptable even if it means rethinking what > "session" means. Jabber is not the only issue. "Participant" > is defined in many different ways in the IETF. If I sign a WG > meeting blue sheet, I don't get to un-sign it by leaving the > room before the WG meeting is over. If you are adopting a > variation on the blue sheet definition (which, you will recall, > was used to justify the registration requirement), the > participant list should show all of those who connected to a > given WG, probably with an indication of whether they are > on-line or not and possibly whether they are local or remote, > not just the Jabber definition of "connected right now". Maybe > there is also a difference between someone explicitly signing > off and simply disappearing (possibly as a result of a dropped > connection rather than participant action). Probably that list > shouldn't abruptly disappear when the meeting ends either -- > another matter you should sort out with the IESG (and maybe > IAOC). > > (6) I'm one of the people who believes that we lost something > when overhead projector foils -- which could be easily and > quickly marked up during a talk or discussion-- gave way to > PowerPoint (TM; grumble). No matter how much we campaign for > presentation materials being uploaded well in advance of > sessions, I hope there will always be the possibility of the > kind of last-minute changes that come from last night's hall > conversation or this morning's breakfast (those conversations > are among the things that actually make f2f meetings > worthwhile), so removing the slides from the screen the instant > the projector goes off may not be optimal and shifting > _exclusively_ to "show from local PDF copy of what was uploaded > a week ago" may not be either. > > best, > john > > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
