Thinking about this "live captions not transcripts" approach as everyone insists on doing realtime online materials and I just... I know realtime has benefits but you do know that if you opt for asynchronous pre-recorded materials you can cut costs and increase access?

I'm going to be coming back to this point fairly frequently both because it's a drum I want to bang because ACCESS MATTERS in this nightmare world of remote access where things are both more and less accessible to disabled people, AND bc @AAT_transcribes's survival depends on it

I really, really need people to sit down and think about whether the benefits of live online interactions outweigh the costs of both excluding those who can't easily access either live sessions OR remote sessions as well as the cash costs of specialist support relying on tech

To be clear: there are amazing STTR practitioners out there and you should be hiring them for the live sessions you do choose to have.

But must ALL sessions be live sessions? Does the value of this "as standard" really outweigh the costs? Esp when creative alternatives exist?

Check out, for example, the *incredible* blended approach that was raved about by participants of the #SSiC2020 conference - 12 pre-recorded talks and keynotes, w transcripts and captions, released 1 week in advance of a live day of online discussion, all requiring registration

I know everyone esp working at universities is EXHAUSTED and having a lot of shit thrown at them but please, please, don't replicate the bad old "I'm too tired and busy to think about who I'm excluding" approach, and trust yr colleagues who are innovating in this area

Like, what if you wanted to do a 2 day event, and instead of 2 live days with 6-7 events with no live captioning, which will be EXHAUSTING to all participants let alone Deaf, autistic and other ND people, energy impaired people? Why not do 12 pre-recorded talks w 2 live keynotes?

If you reduce your live presentation time, you will DECREASE CASH COSTS AND INCREASE OVERALL ACCESSIBILITY, and even if you will still have to solve the live access issues you will have reduced the total size of that problem set. It's both easier and cheaper, for you.

Selfishly, let me also say that by opting for pre-recorded online materials with lead time for transcription you will have enlarged the potential pool of people who can get paid to do this less specialised work vs the small pool of highly specialised higher cost live captioners.

Partly why @AAT_transcribes is set up why it is and why transcription work is accessible (to some) is that it can be done any time, from home, in your jim jams, from bed, whatever. Live/synchronous approaches are less accessible to lots of people - including me! as a participant!

Anyway, some thoughts for your consideration. Please, please reflect on these ideas, share them with colleagues and bosses, and put your back into arguing that in this world where disabled people are in some ways getting better access, we shouldn't double down on exclusions.