> On Nov 2, 2015, at 2:17 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. .. >