Re: Remote participation fees - do we need projectors?

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Sun, 15 February 2015 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC34E1A036C for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:44:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.078
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gYl-T1WhrIda for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:44:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AADF1A0362 for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:44:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by labms9 with SMTP id ms9so19478383lab.10 for <>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:44:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=EgRQDV8q+BkDehcYtUYXc5TBc1dkuKWb+1es859K1dU=; b=re3ptStvSzQJ5ix0wzCNh7+L6CPGmu1c35TJZK1DPx/DEYhnvXgVWu43yV5YyggoKK zRtex00ZWtBVaCiIaGpa0KKWDRK5S/wAaD93kOMls906uMdMrfChCU7KB2OuaEWfJUVI bFiMAZQNX7fbVKeIGpiEDedy1Ws0AqS1wIiqQ+tv0+HACDN2aaGC77rvZy1wCiYsRfVW FjL7SrSATPi8AjrzwDCZjJ/ieWtJXbCIhhWYJJK5IsnblIBKEqDg9g9WtKDmlZ34JSKL kP/m1Mn54bc2OzFN4wk2SFphFQM+W2gD8zlELSUrDHl1Z8c7ejH2MB5N9aHLBWs6BoDC gafQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id y5mr19568181lag.55.1424043855657; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:44:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:44:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 18:44:15 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4ZXOi_mx6Pe5YMyBRA_FlCT4guY
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees - do we need projectors?
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158ca02293f62050f290cb9
Archived-At: <>
Cc: John C Klensin <>, John Leslie <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 23:44:20 -0000

On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Christer Holmberg <> wrote:

> 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.

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.