From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Tue Mar 10 16:08:05 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom9 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom9@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 0B522358A53; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:08:05 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE90A3589AD for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:08:04 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cam.ac.uk; s=20180806.ppsw; h=Sender:Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=XIJUm34WqUaz0iXoBeq7WeM9rXCfehmPcLbtABPBJdg=; b=IuNx9HTpGk+KvbhmKL+zw2Bv85 su7rVUW70rcnPkd2zofQwX5mQqyjU1JCMXz4LQ6nBwJzYoX1xO4B7L5lDgxFbxb7sfdTl5etz5yDL 4uBSiReY2416xL7i0xYK+ib4eZYMGr2I2sPaDQ1fPqyA/q/U02p7H29zTPcdTK2ux7HM=; X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:43544) by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1jBgU9-000jiM-Rf (Exim 4.92.3) (return-path ); Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:07:57 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1jBgU9-0000FH-IO (Exim 4.92.3) (return-path ); Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:07:57 +0000 Received: from [87.115.224.118] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 10 Mar 2020 15:07:57 +0000 Date: 10 Mar 2020 15:07:57 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: Bill Long Cc: General J3 interest list , Malcolm Cohen , WG5 List Subject: Re: [J3] (SC22WG5.6163) [ukfortran] RE: Impact of coronavirus on WG5 meeting Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <20200309144853.0AD4F358750@www.open-std.org> <20200310082437.8C66C9DB116@www.open-std.org> <20200310093232.2228F9DB116@www.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Mar 10 2020, Bill Long wrote: I was certainly not disagreeing with Malcolm's comments! > It would seem that there might be an advantage to a remote meeting for > people with limited hearing. With a good set of speakers or headphones, > you can turn up the volume on the receiving device as high as needed > without disturbing anyone else. Regrettably, hearing does not work that way. While volume is an important factor, clarity of the sound is equally important (often in ways you would not expect); also, many people with hearing loss rely on facial movement as an adjunct (which is the basis of lip reading), and even a 100 mS timing difference breaks that. I know that I also rely on micro-timing, but I don't know how common that is. I agree that, IF you have top-quality audiovisual kit end-to-end, it's not a problem and the recipient CAN adjust the volume. But that's rare, and Skype etc. are distinctly poor-quality. For various irrelevant reasons, I had to investigate the use of them for consultancies during the last few years of my employment, and my conclusion was that they were non-starters. Regards, Nick Maclaren.