Subject: RE: Remote participation fees - do we need projectors?

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:44:33 +0000

Hi,

Do we really need projectors during the WG sessions?

Most participants have laptops/tablets where they could watch the slides.

...and the presenter should keep his/her eyes on the audience, not the slides :)

Not sure how big (if any) impact removing the projectors would have on the participation fee, but at least it would give a little more flexibility when it comes to finding suitable meeting rooms, as a projector is not required.

Regards,

Christer

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 07:23:31 -0500

> Most participants have laptops/tablets where they could watch

Many participants are already too busy using their laptops to
monitor email and/or participate in Jabber (or equivalent)
side-conversations to also be able to monitor slides carefully.
Some of us have even thought that IETF effectiveness would be
improved if we banned laptops/tablets (or WiFi) from WG meetings
except for minute-takers, Jabber scribes, and others actively
interacting with remote participants.

There are other issues with projectors.  Some of us believe that
interaction took a step backwards in going from overhead
projectors to projected slides, but that is mostly a separate
problem and slides available only on personal devices would, if
anything, make it worse.
 
> ...and the presenter should keep his/her eyes on the audience,

Or on the tops of their heads or outside surfaces of laptops.
No audience feedback there.

> Not sure how big (if any) impact removing the projectors would
> have on the participation fee, but at least it would give a
> little more flexibility when it comes to finding suitable
> meeting rooms, as a projector is not required.

Because, with occasional exceptions, the IETF, and not the
hotels, provide the projectors, the consequences on meeting room
flexibility would, I think, be fairly low... unless a policy of
"except when you take an exercise break to walk to the
microphone, nothing going on in the meeting room other than
watching slides on your laptop, listening to a speaker whom you
can't see because you are staring at your laptop screen" further
reduced incentives for people to attend in person, thereby
cutting requirements on meeting room seating and power.

    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:13:08 +1300

> side-conversations to also be able to monitor slides carefully.

Jabber is one thing, but I often find myself scanning the draft under
discussion or looking up related issues in other drafts or RFCs.
(Or even Google.)

Having the point under discussion summarised on a big screen is
useful in itself as a focal point for the discussion. Actually
this is one of the negatives of remote participation - my screen
is taken up with the video so it's hard to do the supplementary
things like jabber.

Incidentally, I don't think that scanning email or tracking progress
in another meeting is a misuse of a laptop. There's a lot going
on during an IETF week and it's entirely possible that something
going on in another room is momentarily more important.

> interacting with remote participants.

I do think that's a narrow view, and in any case it would cause
a popular rebellion. I can still recall how frustrating it was
in the pre-wireless days to only be able to get on line for a short
time per day in the terminal room.

> problem and slides available only on personal devices would, if

Yes. Also, I think most people have understood that slides should
not in general be tutorials. But we need to be reminded that for
many speakers, speaking from slides is enormously easier than just
speaking.

> No audience feedback there.

At least today, you can tell by looking who is paying attention.
That's another aspect of remote participation: the speaker can't
tell who's really listening.

   Brian

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 18:44:15 -0500

On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Christer Holmberg <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Not sure how big (if any) impact removing the projectors would have on the
> participation fee, but at least it would give a little more flexibility
> when it comes to finding suitable meeting rooms, as a projector is not
> required.
>

As with most other hotel charges, they are merely ways to conceal the cost,
not ways to bring it down.

If technology worked reliably, I would have no trouble reading slides on my
laptop. But lets face it, technology is rubbish. It took me a whole meeting
session just getting Jabber working in Honolulu because the client I had
been using had decided on an obnoxious upgrade policy which required me to
replace it.

Since Open Office can't read Powerpoint slides whatever they claim, getting
slides working on a machine is hardly a seamless user experience as you
have to battle through the n x m compatibility matrix.

We have enough problems getting presenter's slides working.

Having done the usability thing back in the day, it is instructive to ask a
UNIX/Windows/Mac sysadmin how easy they find a task they do every 3-4
months or so  and then videotape them performing said task and then play
the video back to them.

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:14:52 +0000

--- Original Message -----
From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>; "John Leslie" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 11:44 PM
> > ...and the presenter should keep his/her eyes on the audience, not
the
> > slides :)

That is my overriding memory of London, not just from Monday morning but
from whenever a WG Chair first encountered the projectors.  The problem,
commonly, was one of aspect ratios, of the projector and laptop having
different views of what the representation should be.  Somewhere, I have
a note of how long - 5 to 10 minutes - each of the sessions was late in
starting.

As a presenter myself, I was taught to rehearse and rehearse until it
all went off pat, and that included all the technology.  Yet WG Chairs
would turn up at 09:00, e.g., and expect to have the 'Note Well' on
display by 09:01:-(

Tom Petch