Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho Details

From: "HANSEN, TONY L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 16:15:13 +0000

Another datapoint:

I had filed away the "how to remotely participate" message, figuring I MIGHT need it on Monday morning, but probably wouldn't because the tools.ietf.org/agenda page has these nice links going directly to the meetecho pages for the rooms. Then having the "Huh? What?" moment after seeing the responses saying we need to register, AND the same "muttering into my beard" feeling that John had as I filled in the registration form.

Meetecho, while a really nice tool, has in the past exhibited rather annoying tendencies to drop and require a complete re-login sequence to get back on. It never seems to remember who you were before to streamline the process. Given that there is now an additional barrier on getting that information exactly right (no typos allowed as you're scrambling to get logged back in), I have concerns in that area too.

	Tony

On 3/31/16, 9:03 PM, "WGChairs on behalf of John C Klensin" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
>--On Thursday, March 31, 2016 11:56 -0700 Dave Crocker
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> (ietf list dropped.)
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/31/2016 11:28 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote:
>>> ... but the "everything else was normal" actually includes a
>>> number of options that are not relevant to remote
>>> participation and the form is long and confusing. How hard
>>> would it be to make a separate form for remote users with
>>> fewer steps and fewer options? Linking directly from the
>>> meetecho pages to a short form would be peachy.
>> 
>> 
>> Just to clarify:  I wanted to distinguish between 'can't
>> register or can't figure out how to register' from 'the pages
>> need to be better'. The latter matters, but not nearly as much
>> as the former, IMO.
>
>Agree completely.
>
>However, I'm also concerned about a third case which is "likely
>to discourage or frustrate some newcomers and drive them away".
>As I suggested earlier, you and I (and Lucy, Melinda, and most
>[other] WG Chairs have sufficient experience with the IETF that,
>if we click on a link that seems to be "register as remote
>participant" and it takes us to the general registration page,
>we skim or skip over the introductory material that is very much
>oriented toward in-person attendees.  We then look through the
>form, find the "Remote Participation" attendee type, and then,
>at least in the case of the two of us, mutter into our beards
>while filling out a not-entirely-appropriate form.  Some
>(possibly non-zero) number of newcomers read the introductory
>stuff and possibly start filling out the form, conclude that it
>is unreasonably intrusive or completely oriented toward f2f
>participation, and drop out of the registration process --and
>IETF participation-- without completing it.  
>
>> FWIW, as much as I'm sensitive to problematic web
>> interactions, I didn't find this one all that challenging.
>
>Agreed, but you and I aren't the audience of major concern.  Not
>only can we figure out how to navigate the relevant page(s),
>but, if that fails, we have a rather good idea who to scream at
>and little or no shyness about doing so.    The typical newcomer
>will have none of those attributes.
>
>   john
>