On your Mark, Set, ZOOM--on a survey

RantWoman needs the Quaker universe to please hold in the Light "Oh, I hope it's accessible Friend." and the saga of SignUp Genius. RantWoman specifically wants to talk about problems, not individual people. This is hard when the same individual people keep having the same problems over and over. Hopefully, this blog post will help comb out enough knots among the threads that MAYBE meaningful conversation and even followup can occur. Hopefully.

This post is about Zoom, and accessibility, and asking the right questions on a survey, and providing enough room in the open-ended text block for a complete answer. And NOT EXCLUDING AN Accessibility tools SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT from helping formulate the questions and interpret the responses!

RantWoman has not completed the entire Disability Committee Survey. RantWoman keeps looking at one section after another and having "my head is going to explode" moments. After "My head is going to explode," RantWoman's next thought tends to be something like "I could write a blog post about every single section and sometimes every single question within a section." RantWoman is QUITE familiar with this problem. It occurs almost anytime RantWoman is handed a survey. SOME of the time RantWoman can chill out and see what emerges from presenting data in small increments. Some of the time, uhhh....

Bear in mind that the Ad-hoc Committee on Disabilities right now consists of one brave Friend who seems to get "Nothing about us without us," one Friend who consistently defines problems differently than RantWoman, consistently misses 1/2 - 2/3 of what RantWoman considers important in some conversations,, one Friend who is utterly failing to deliver on a promise to be able and willing to dialogue about theological diversity, gaslights RantWoman about physical safety issues in email. The PERFECT team, and so highly functional? RantWoman is also holding in the Light 4 Friends who have dipped toes into the committee work and found something, hopefully besides RantWoman's charming personality, too daunting to fit into their schedules.

But let us begin with the section of the survey about Zoom. This section got added after RantWoman was no longer allowed to have anything to do with the survey. RantWoman wishes there were different data to collect about the process. RantWoman also DOES NOT APOLOGIZE for posting her concerns to her blog, asking the whole Quaker universe to hold the issues in the Light and not immediately exhausting herself with further one-on-one labor with individuals.

Software Accessibility? Anyone? Software accessibility? Shouldn't there be SOME kind of question about software accessibility and use of accessibility tools or accessibility measures? RantWoman means, um, remember that bit about SignUp Genius and "Oh I hope it's accessible" AFTER the tool had already been chosen? Remember that RantWoman wrote about FOUR blog posts on her non-Quaker blog about small non-profits and minimal due diligence when selecting a tool especially when there is at least one blind person known to be in the picture. (There are other blind people, actually, but they are, um, considerably more subdued and also entangled in fewer threads of Meting life than RantWoman. Remember, or maybe not an unfortunate visit to Coordinating Committee where RantWoman tried to outline simple fast things people can do to see whether developers of tools have thought about accessibility? 

After complete jumble emerged in the coordinating committee minutes, RantWoman realized she she should check whether people had any idea what RantWoman was talking about. No. That was part of the problem. In fact, RantWoman is pretty sure the Recording Clerk being unfamiliar with key concepts has been a problem over several different recording clerks; that is a whole separate thread.

But why is RantWoman bringing this up now? 

Because Zoom is software! RantWoman has the same accessibility issues and the same tools and skills whether she is in the workplace, in her many "will work for sandwiches" policy related volunteer gigs, and when striving for Spirit-led presence around Quakers or otherwise. 

Because RantWoman needs accessibility features ALL THE FREAKING TIME, not just when someone remembers or it is convenient

Because RantWoman should not be assumed to be the only person who might be using accessibility tools
     
Because, just think opportunity to live a single-standard of Truth, simplicity, harmony in the universe.

Digression: also a quote from "I hope it's accessible" Friend.

No RantWoman, we did not release you from membership because you are blind. We released you because (.among other things you kept trying to talk to us in email I just deleted....)

Besides accessibility issues and use of accessibility tools, RantWoman also needs to comment on the use of chat--and RantWoman needs to comment in considerable detail.

RantWoman mentions this because recently she was completing a survey about accessibility needs to participate in a set of public meetings. There was one question asking about several accessibility measures in video conferencing systems. RantWoman started out with a response that had 67 words. Then there was an edit and a 93 word count. Then RantWoman submitted an answer of 131 words. And every single one of those words is important TO RANTWOMAN and RantWoman really, really, really does not #$#*$$# care whether she is the only person in the room they are important to. Furthermore, there are MORE words RantWoman could add!

Here is the answer RantWoman submitted in the text block after Other in a list of items that seem reasonable and important for others who might also be in a meeting:

"Virtual meeting chats can be very valuable places to share resources. But too much chatter in the chat can be very difficult for screen reader users. In my experience unless I mute notifications, the screen reader will read chat items as soon as they come in and that gets in the way of the rest of the audio or distracts me if it happens while I am speaking. I never like disabling chat because I really appreciate being able to exchange contact info and other resources with other participants but definitely some discipline about public messages Project? (commenting on a part of the question)  Do you mean screen share? I only know of one tool browser combination where screen share is accessible to screen reader users. If advance distribution does not happen, files can be pasted into the chat to download.

RantWoman has mixed feelings about private chat and sometimes even public information. It is really nice to convey information immediately but sometimes it distracts attention in a less than desirable way.

(RantWoman could edit this and be more clear. Tough. It's a survey response. For RantWoman it's like an elevator pitch. RantWoman gets to say some version of it ALL THE TIME.

Aside from screen share, one aspect of online meetings RantWoman finds awkward is departing. In all the transportation related "public engagement " RantWoman goes to, RantWoman usually likes to say something like Thanks All, Bye. RantWoman goes to one event where one person likes to say Goodbye to every single person who leaves. RantWoman totally wants to honor the human warmth behind this gesture--and it drives RantWoman CRAZY. 

The problem is RantWoman thinks that besides spiritual enrichment, if one's faith community doesn't drive one CRAZY some of the time, it is probably not doing its job in terms of opportunities for spiritual growth! God is NOT all about consent. No one consents to earthquakes, the corona virus, or DNA lotto. And video conferencing offers whole vast new vistas of pathways to the beloved community!

Peace. Love. Light Faithfulness--and screen shots, though that is another post.

Sincerely, RantWoman