Re: [vmeet] meetecho for remote presenters

[Simon Pietro Romano <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Coming back to part of this and dropping the tools list...
> 
> --On Friday, April 08, 2016 15:42 +0200 Meetecho IETF support
> <[e-mail]> 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
> 
>