Re: Remote participation fees - do we need projectors?
t.p. <email@example.com> Mon, 16 February 2015 10:53 UTC
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E16B91A87C5 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 02:53:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([220.127.116.11]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f49jgix0DcG5 for <email@example.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 02:52:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0775.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::775]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 598A51A0158 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 02:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pc6 (18.104.22.168) by AMSPR07MB245.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.19.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 22.214.171.124; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:52:37 +0000
From: t.p. <email@example.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D6F1F1F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAMm+LwhX59-wwC9wmdufLFWX-=uTuLOqm8Fs0XDOVPUs40gGHg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees - do we need projectors?
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:14:52 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-ClientProxiedBy: DB4PR02CA0019.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.242.174.147) To AMSPR07MB245.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.19.23)
Authentication-Results: hallambaker.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004); SRVR:AMSPR07MB245;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51704005)(377454003)(13464003)(24454002)(110136001)(19580405001)(50986999)(19580395003)(92566002)(76176999)(81686999)(14496001)(86362001)(87976001)(84392001)(66066001)(47776003)(62236002)(44716002)(23676002)(62966003)(77156002)(77096005)(122386002)(46102003)(50226001)(42186005)(116806002)(61296003)(33646002)(50466002)(44736004)(40100003)(74416001)(7726001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AMSPR07MB245; H:pc6; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2015 10:52:37.0341 (UTC)
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:53:01 -0000
--- Original Message ----- From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <email@example.com> To: "Christer Holmberg" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: "John C Klensin" <email@example.com>om>; "John Leslie" <firstname.lastname@example.org>et>; <email@example.com> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 11:44 PM > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Christer Holmberg < > firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > 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. 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 > 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. >
- RE: Remote participation fees - do we need projec… Christer Holmberg
- RE: Remote participation fees - do we need projec… John C Klensin
- Re: Remote participation fees - do we need projec… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Remote participation fees - do we need projec… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Remote participation fees - do we need projec… t.p.