-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 85
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
"Review" recording status should show as DNR in public schedule #1727
Comments
The icon is "won't be recorded", and the assumption is they'll be reviewed and approved. |
Understood 🙂 Some of them may well be, but the speaker could decide not to agree to release. For future events, I think we should fall back to displaying these as 'not recorded' as there is a significant chance they will not be released, and people make decisions on what to see based on the advertised status. We tell speakers they have the absolute right to decline publication. To use a tangential example, it's rare that a talk advertised as being recorded isn't published, but we already have one example of that this year. |
I think probably The question is, what's the most useful thing to show on the schedule? I'm leaning towards:
Perhaps this is too complicated, but I can't off the top of my head think of a simpler way to show it that doesn't mislead people - as it is currently:
|
To some extent I think we do want to limit options, both for our own sanity but also to encourage recording & streaming wherever possible (it's an important part of the implicit 'contract' with volunteers). This is mostly an expectation management problem I think, not a technical one.
IMO this is an exception rather than a rule. In the case you're referring to the recording will never be published, but it wasn't intended to be that way and it's not something we'd routinely offer speakers.
Agreed. And it's important we correctly show talks that may not be released as recordings. I would err towards showing anything that isn't public as "not recorded", then anything better than that is positive.
Don't disagree. I'm not sure if we necessarily want to publicise that raw though - potential for information overload in the UI and there is a certain amount of speaker sensitivity. Some speakers want to review the recording and decide whether to publish - that's a recorded and not streamed talk, but we shouldn't be advertising it as such. |
Yeah, fair enough
yep- though this could result in confusion/paniced "should this have been released" feedback...
Mm, agreed on the sensitivity of the review setting. though we'd need to make that decision for the |
Bear in mind that we have had eager attendees interpret "will not be recorded" as "no photos will be taken during this talk", and confront people with event photography passes (not about their own images, which is obviously fine, but trying to be helpful about the talk as a whole). We need to think carefully about the messaging of not-recorded talks to avoid exacerbating this if we're actually staffing people to point video cameras. |
I wonder if we should switch to the implicit default being "no recording" and show an icon in the positive case for "this event will be recorded"? This potentially solves two things:
|
This seems like a good option. It also helps solve #1726 |
Review talks should show as "not recorded" in the public interface. There is no certainty these will ever be published.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: