![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Just a quick note of opinion.
Sep. 26th, 2008 01:58 pmI was unable to attend the Nokia event yesterday, and while I was disappointed that I could not attend, it was not an overt disappointment.
The event was held in Voice.
As such, considering the status of automated transcription programs to date, I doubt the event was considered a serious information gathering point. After all, there is no record of what was said, unless it was in Chat. Or unless it was recorded, which requires more manpower for combing out the voices, determining who said what, and accurately transcribing the information. Typonese aside, Chat is my preferred mode for conducting meetings.
There is also my observation that when confronted with those who Chat, invariably, those who use Voice will congregate and converse, ignoring the ones in Chat. Never mind there might be useful information there.
I have turned Voice capability off for long stretches of time, because there are those who abuse it – whether it be with inane chatter obliterating the music at an event, constantly “testing” to see if everyone can hear you (we can, dear – you just have not said anything to which I feel I must reply) or by using improperly configured equipment (If you MUST use Voice, use a headset and save the rest of us from the feedback).
Finally, some of us who are at a disadvantage, having out-world agents who attended Very Loud concerts without sufficient ear protection. Yes, she can hear, but it is difficult for her to discern what is said in a crowd. Polite requests for repetition or even a request for Chat conversation are sometimes ignored. Her sister is the one who is deaf-as-a-post. However, since the out-world agent is not sufficiently hearing impaired to qualify for ADA assistance, she has not pushed the issue as she possibly should have.
... gracious, where did that soap box come from?
The event was held in Voice.
As such, considering the status of automated transcription programs to date, I doubt the event was considered a serious information gathering point. After all, there is no record of what was said, unless it was in Chat. Or unless it was recorded, which requires more manpower for combing out the voices, determining who said what, and accurately transcribing the information. Typonese aside, Chat is my preferred mode for conducting meetings.
There is also my observation that when confronted with those who Chat, invariably, those who use Voice will congregate and converse, ignoring the ones in Chat. Never mind there might be useful information there.
I have turned Voice capability off for long stretches of time, because there are those who abuse it – whether it be with inane chatter obliterating the music at an event, constantly “testing” to see if everyone can hear you (we can, dear – you just have not said anything to which I feel I must reply) or by using improperly configured equipment (If you MUST use Voice, use a headset and save the rest of us from the feedback).
Finally, some of us who are at a disadvantage, having out-world agents who attended Very Loud concerts without sufficient ear protection. Yes, she can hear, but it is difficult for her to discern what is said in a crowd. Polite requests for repetition or even a request for Chat conversation are sometimes ignored. Her sister is the one who is deaf-as-a-post. However, since the out-world agent is not sufficiently hearing impaired to qualify for ADA assistance, she has not pushed the issue as she possibly should have.
... gracious, where did that soap box come from?
