On Nov 2, 2015, at 2:17 AM, Adrian Farrel
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Oh OK.
So there is a test for quality in advance, and if you fail the test you go
right
ahead and present anyway?
Is that possibly broken?
Im planning to do a remote presentation. The test tool give a me a positive
results.
There is a backup plan in place that if the connection fails or I’m not
available someone else will
present.
I think this is the minimum standard remote presenters should have.
Similarly presenters should run the test tool just before the WG meeting to see
the current network
situation.
I think this should be the minimum standard for remote presenters, "plan ahead”
Olafur
I asked the meetecho folks about the presentation that we both saw fail and
they said they saw the same issues during a test with the presentor.
Perhaps we also need a high loss tollerant codec available for such cases.
Of course the added latency is likely to make interaction cumbersome, but
better than the complete failure we both witnessed -- where apparently the
presentor was told it wasn't join to work, but only had the option of
hoping his access link would (magically) improve. ..