Seeking Crowd Wisdom

[jesse_the_k]

...to help us spread the word about speaking up.

One of the goals of this year's WisCon access endeavor is to improve the con's experience for members with hearing impairments. We're supplying more mics for the panels. We reserve spaces front and center (marked with blue tape) which are handy for people who are speech reading.

But the crucial element is cooperation from all the members. I've come up with a wordy and sober statement. I'd love it if the collective wisdom could make this more succinct, more powerful, more impressive, more funny ... it just needs a whole lot of "more":

 begin quote 
It's important for all panelists to use the mics when provided, without hesitation, shyness, or complaint. What we say is interesting enough for the people without hearing impairments. If we don't use the mics, we're effectively preventing members with hearing impairments from participating. Since members in the audience don't have mics, we ask panelists to wait until the moderator has repeated the question before responding.
 quote ends 

Ideas? Thoughts?

Comments

[rydra_wong]

It's important for all panelists to use the mics when provided, without hesitation, shyness, or complaint.

"without hesitation [or] shyness" makes me flinch; I am hesitant and shy anyway, especially when using an unfamiliar piece of tech.

I appreciate where you're trying to go with that sentence, but it shouldn't be hurtful to panelists who may themselves have issues with anxiety or social awkwardness.

I'd suggest leaving it as "It's important for all panelists to use the mics when provided", cutting the rest of that sentence, and going straight into why it's important.

[sasha_feather]

I think what you have is good, with rydra's edit. Shyness is OK! Just be shy *into* the microphone.

Below is just random idea generation:

At WisCon we are proud of what we say! Please use the mics.
Be loud and proud! Use your mic!
Be a rock star! Rock your microphone.

[yarram]

Mods should be repeating questions anyway, because some of the panelists (*ahem* like me *ahem*) have hearing issues themselves. Other than that, what the others said about the shyness bit rings true to me, so reworking strikes me as a good idea.

One bit of microphone etiquette I learned at Minicon is that you really do have to let the thing invade your personal space. One foot away isn't close enough; my experience suggests that optimal distance is about 3-4 inches - close enough for the mic to pick up your voice, but far enough that those of us in the first rows trying to lipread still can do so.

[opinion_rush]

some random suggestions:

what you have to say matters! Use the mic so we can hear it!

So that all participants can participate, let's use the mics! This also goes for responding to questions: please wait to respond until after the moderator [or appropriate title] has repeated your question Thanks!

[anjak_j]

It's important for all panelists to use the mics when provided, without hesitation, shyness, or complaint.

I would probably rephrase this as:

"We request that you please use the provided microphones to make the panel experience inclusive of all members of the audience."

You don't want to put people who have anxiety issues under pressure or at a disadvantage in trying to help those who are Deaf/Hard of Hearing.

Which brings me nicely to the use of the descriptor 'hearing impairment'. This can be considered quite offensive by people who are part of the Deaf Community. Deaf/Hard of Hearing are preferred terms.

Kudos to you for making the con experience more inclusive. As someone who is HoH, I've had problems in the past, and it is nice to see a con addressing inclusiveness of the Deaf Community.

[redbird]

Nitpick, but "we request that you please $anything" seems formal and bureaucratic; I'd make it "Please use the microphones to make the panel experience inclusive of all members of the audience" (or possible "of the convention," given what someone said about panelists with hearing issues.

[redbird]

One practical thought that goes beyond wording the statement: This is going to be a little hard on moderators if audience members have long questions, or multi-sentence comments or contributions to the discussion. My memory isn't good enough to repeat a lengthy question and be sure of getting it right.

We may need to, when we get to audience questions, either ask people to keep them brief or encourage audience members to use the microphone. Possibly some combination, varying from one panel to another. I moderated one last year that was basically me introducing the topic briefly, the panelists each saying a bit, and then moving around the room as people offered examples. I'd have gone hoarse if I'd tried to repeat every audience comment for 40 minutes.

[fish_echo]

I have a few comments. I'm going to drop them rather randomly and separate them with dashes (because today transitions and I are not friends).

-----

I have a question: Why are you asking the panelists to use mics? Is it because the mics are hooked up to speakers which are loud enough to be heard easily throughout the room? Or is it because the mics are hooked up to those radio-ear-bud-things (which are used by people who are hard of hearing) as well as to speakers to the room at large (which is useful to ensure that everyone who lacks a radio-ear-bud-thing can also hear the panelists)?

I ask because in the latter case I would use the mic (because of the ear-buds) but in the former case I would probably request that my mic be turned off. Here's my reasoning: I'm very good at projecting my voice and I know the size of the room which my voice can fill (if anything, I underestimate this) and I find that I speak more naturally (and thus more clearly) when I am unmiced than when I am miced.

Not that I'm going to WisCon, but in case someone else is like me, I'm sure they'd appreciate the clarification.

-----

I'd be wary of putting too much emphasis on making it funny-- I'd very much rather have something which is informative than something which is chipper&cheery but not informative. (Partially this is because I tend to read faux-humourous or faux-chipper things as very condescending.) Clearly a happy medium is preferred for tone, but if I had to choose between more formal (which indicates respect and seriousness) and very informal (which indicates a lack of importance), I prefer more formal. (Um, I know the irony of saying this when my journal is generally very informal. But there's a difference between my jotted-down thoughts and a semi-official statement.) The current length doesn't seem long to me, fwiw.

Obviously, everything I've said in this section is a case of YMMV but since you asked my opinions I'm telling you them.

-----
If we don't use the mics, we're effectively preventing members with hearing impairments from participating. Since members in the audience don't have mics, we ask panelists to wait until the moderator has repeated the question before responding.

I suggest adding a transition in some fashion since I initially found that a bit confusing.

Possible suggestion: If we don't use the mics, we're effectively preventing members with hearing impairments from participating. In addition, as members of the audience lack mics, we ask panelists to wait to speak until the moderator has finished repeating the question.

Hmm, evidently I also changed some wording a bit? (Which is to say, any differences which follow 'we ask panelists' are changes I would make were I you but are not as important for clarity.)

(Sidenote: I found myself wanting to expand that contraction every single time I thought about rewriting this sentence. Which is not to say that you must do so but merely an observation/reflection upon my own tendencies. The advantage of expanding the contractions is that it emphasises the statement. The disadvantage is that it is more formal and some people bristle at that level of formality when they feel that it is not required.)

-----

I know nothing about the facilities available, so I have no idea how feasible this is, so please disregard if this is not useful. On the topic of the burden on the moderator to repeat all the questions/comments from the audience: Something I've seen done well before is to have one (or two, depending on the size of the room) standing mic in the aisle that the audience uses to ask questions. This is obviously not convenient for folks with mobility difficulties, but perhaps something else can be arranged-- perhaps raising an arm or a flag or some other signal to the moderator that zee wishes to speak? If there was a cordless mic, that would be easiest to use in this case, otherwise I suppose the moderator could repeat the question? .... I'm not terribly sure how exactly is the best way to go about this, obviously ...

-----

What we say is interesting enough for the people without hearing impairments. If we don't use the mics, we're effectively preventing members with hearing impairments from participating.

I found this bit clunky and perhaps a tad preachy. I also am not really a fan of leading with a conditional in the second sentence, since that puts the emphasis on not using the mics, rather than on *why* one ought to use the mics. I also think there is no need to use 'effectively' since it is not effectively preventing, it is actually preventing in the case of Deaf/Hard of Hearing audience members-- using 'effectively' just softens the statement unnecessarily.

Perhaps something like:

We ask this in order to ensure that everyone, Deaf or Hard of Hearing or not, can hear the panelists.

The advantage of this phrasing is that it gives the rationale for the request and assumes that the reader wishes to ensure that everyone can partake of the panel.

If you really want to keep the second sentence around, I'd suggest changing it to something like: Deaf/Hard of Hearing audience members are prevented from participating when mics are not used; if you really want to keep the active voice then: When we don't use mics, we prevent Deaf/Hard of Hearing audience members from participating

-----

The previous comments about the 'shy' bit make sense to me.

-----

I hope this all makes sense? If not, please do ask me for clarification!

[jesse_the_k]

Many thanks to each of you for excellent points and good advice.

It's important to recognize that people's issues with shyness, social anxiety, and different understandings of social rules are part of our community.

I'm definitely going to admonish people to "welcome the mic into your personal space, around a fist width away from your mouth."

I've participated in panel discussions where there were wireless mics plus runners who brought the loud to audience members as needed. That's definitely the ideal, and relieves the moderator of the "rephrase & summarize the question" burden. WisCon is very devoted to low-cost solutions, however, and the budget won't cover wireless mics in the audience.

Even if it did, that doesn't help lipreaders. Before cheap video equipment, Deaf/HoH-run events placed copy signers and shadow lip speakers on the stage. They'd repeat audience questions verbatim, so the audience could keep their eyes front all the time. (And thanks for the reminder on the preferred terminology!)

fish_echo, you raise an intriguing point about preferring to use your own vocal projection skills instead of the mic. I've encountered this preference before and it stymies me. I'm sure you've worked hard to develop your projection and diction, and I don't mean to dismiss that effort.

The technical issue first: the mics are connected to an overhead speaker system, which means that the sound is equally loud throughout the room. The sound system is tuned to boost the mic'ed output above the constant air-conditioning hum. There are a variety of personal "assisted listening devices" like the ear-buds you mention: all of them work better with an amplified signal. For some of us, our hearing impairments are related to discriminating foreground and background: it's not just about the loud. If one person on a panel declines to use the mic, they are choosing to move from the foreground to the background.

Members of the Deaf/HoH community have made it clear that mic use and good sight lines are baseline requirements. One of my favorite things about WisCon members are the many first-time panelists, who lack your vocal polish. I'm hoping a policy of across-the-board mic use will mean better access for all of us.

Does learning these things change your mind?