Cadmore media player playing video Risks and Trust in a Well Functioning PID Infrastructure
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
Risks and Trust in a Well Functioning PID Infrastructure
Description:
Risks and Trust in a Well Functioning PID Infrastructure
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/87116a79-7201-4f56-bcaf-8ca97d59dc58/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H23M35S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/87116a79-7201-4f56-bcaf-8ca97d59dc58
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/87116a79-7201-4f56-bcaf-8ca97d59dc58/Risks and Trust in a Well Functioning PID Infrastructure .mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=2bKNtbGSTy5xjMofMdZuIuM3ixzJlBKBcjpszDJ8W%2Bw%3D&st=2024-12-26T17%3A36%3A44Z&se=2024-12-26T19%3A41%3A44Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Thank you very much. I hope you can hear me. Well, I'm really glad to be here and to see you all on this, especially Jessica, I guess probably somewhere there. Yeah, just. Just popped it down on my screen. So welcome again.
Welcome to everyone. So I hope you do. And liked our session. This is now the Q&A and maybe you already have a few questions. Otherwise, I have a few that we could start with. If if you allow me, maybe this question will be, first of all, to Ulrich. There was more about the business model of identifiers.
Do you think know, the open source, open access community funding model is sustainable in the long run? And is there a difference between, you know, developed countries and less favored countries? What about also the price of getting a pid? Could you expand on that? OK Thanks a lot, Kyle. First, these are three questions. So I would style this as first aspect.
And I think the community funded model and the commercial approach shows some remarkable differences regarding how sustainability is produced defined. We found out that sustainability is both a cause and consequence of trust. A body is considered trustworthy if it is supported by a community, but this is only supported by the community if the community needs it and feels involved in decision making processes.
In this case, there is also a willingness to support the service financially, and this willingness to pay for something is a strong indicator of trust. Trust is in the community model. Model the trust is the basis of a payment course for payment, and this is needed to be sustainable. However, with commercial interest, I think it's perhaps more of a customer contractor relationship trust results than expectations that a service will be provided.
It is somewhat more, but is less commitment behind it. You pay and you have a right to service provision here. Payment is the basis of trust, not trust is the basis of payment. But I would not generalize that commercial payers serve the needs of a community overall. Often there are even more and more agl. Cross UI offers many advantages over the brand. And on the other hand, if you consider raw, which emphasizes community participation and engagement, raw nevertheless fulfils, for instance, the need of identifying organizational units or subunits worse than Ringgold does.
Coming back to your question, I guess sustainability exists when the service meets the needs of a community. And this capability is largely independent of the business model. With one exception in our study, it became clear that open data is an incredibly important signal of sustainability as it allows service recovery. And this is clearly more likely to be found in community models and in commercial models.
And when we have a look at the privileged or non privileged regions, and it's important to say that even if it's not the claim or the function of pids, these are perceived as markers of quality. And therefore it would reinforce the perceived gap between privileged and non privileged regions if the latter couldn't afford the utilization or adoption of priorities, especially since the adoption of ORCID or raw wood uses better rankings, ranking positions.
And here the community based services tend to be better suited to offer its services at moderate prices. And last point, what are the prizes for? It's a little bit hard to find out what the prize is because the funding is often somewhere somehow eclectic and not very transparent. The best figure I found was from an ORCID. A new report from 2021 and market states states that take up expenses in this year of about 4.1 million USD.
Now these are again, these are the expenses, 4.1 billion USD and in the same year they got million updated or added pocket records. But this would mean the price would be $1.1 per added edit or updated record. But of course this figure depends on how much you invest in marketing, hosting and also on whether the service is in a phase of growth, because then you have to integrate new features which result in higher costs.
Nevertheless, this might be more or less orientation. Thank you very much. Oldish any comments on that or questions to address? All to another speaker. Otherwise I can carry on because well, of course we're recording this session of a few weeks ago, so we've had time to reflect upon questions.
Maybe my second question will be for Jessica. And then the idea was, well, the question would be, what is the ultimate goal of fi? Is it to make Finnish research more competitive, more visible or more inclusive? And could you tell us a bit about how finish colors are evaluated? OK yes, I can try the I would say the research that five aims at all of these but maybe Yeah one of the main points why it has been such a big big effort has been that it has been the way actually which with the government wants to spread the funding or divide the funding to, to the universities.
So this has been a really. Really important tool. And also there is the evaluation is there is we have an organization for research ethics or integrity. And they have some rules and recommendations for assessment and good practice. And also there is a system where we assess papers or publication journals.
So they have different sort of points. But it's I think people are really hoping that we would get a more like qualitative assessment system than we have today. And this is, of course, an ongoing discussion. And we also try and the Ministry tries to and wants to pay attention to the open access and like their principles and stuff. And we are currently having these discussions, especially about data publication, that how can we even measure data publications or citations?
Because that's hideously difficult to measure. So yeah, it's, it's, it's a very interesting thing I think development because it makes it. So we have like it makes people want to or they have to and want to like conform with the shared information standards and practices regarding research information. And that's, that's useful. And that's the National policy you were mentioning in your presentation address this issue of this assessment of research.
Is it something. Do you. No, no, no, actually not. It's done in a different we have this open science and Research Coordination where they are making the negotiating about this national policy. So the discussion is happening there. Excellent yes, you can.
There are questions from the audience. Maybe I can turn so there's. Oh, maybe there is one. Yeah there's a question from Chris. Oh, I didn't see it. Chris, please. Everyone can unmute yourselves or you should be able to. There you go. Can you guys hear me?
Yes Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful presentations. I just wanted to at least think about an alternate view that fragmentation in the pit landscape is problematic in that you could argue that diversity in a set of approaches is a strength and a marker of resilience and the kind of organic process we've seen over the last, let's say, ten, 15 years of kids emerging by consensus process as being the ones that folks want to consolidate around, gives more opportunity to explore a variety of needs and use cases and different approaches.
I'm happy to take those guys. OK so, yeah, definitely. I mean, in the course of the interviews we carried out, I think several interviewees said that having competing approaches to implementing specific pads was a positive thing because it would improve us.
You would expect competition to course it would improve the quality of the outcomes. But then if you have two different initiatives. Targeting the same entity which are not talking to each other. I think that can be a bit problematic. So it's as if we had I mean, I mentioned already, this is the kind of best example we have and it's great to see so many things highlighted on the chart that you have on your website.
But it would be great if other less consolidated or currently less consolidated initiatives could kind of learn from the strongholds that or I mean, the milestones that ORCID has gone through in its process to become very well consolidated so that we can reach a decently built plane while we fly. It's this is kind of the issue we are highlighting on the title of the report that's too much fragmentation or too much diversity might put the whole thing at risk eventually because we it well very well it worked it worked very well with ORCIDs because it was so well designed and you had pretty much everyone on board.
But this is definitely not the case for all the initiatives that we are seeing right now. It's very wide and some of them are at a very early stage of development. And you could expect an enhanced recommendation for the Federation as a place as an organization where. Successful lessons could be learned by those who are other others, lower or other delayed stage in terms of their implementation.
I hope that kind of answers the question to some extent, at least. Thanks thank you, Pablo. Any other question from. From the floor? This one from Owen. Yeah hello, everyone. Yeah, I put a question in the chat.
And I'm from Nigeria where sort of the awareness and use of pets is not as. Not as far as maybe the global North. I'm we're trying to look at strategies to increase pet adoption. And one of the things we're trying to push our National Open science policies. And within those policies, we're talking about pids and how they should be utilized.
But from the presentations today, there's really so much to be considered around pids and formulating the strategy. I'm just wondering whether they should be separate, should be separated, or should they be integrated in terms of PID policies and open science policies, particularly at a national level? And I just wanted to get people's thoughts on that.
Taking into consideration, we're talking about Nigeria, which is not quite as sophisticated with the use of pids as maybe Europe and America. Maybe that's a question for you, Jessica, because you're the one speaking about the National policy and. Oh, well, I'm sorry. I have to admit, I was typing a reply in the chat here for a comment for the previous question because I didn't want to take to the floor.
So maybe if I could ask you to repeat the justice of or the. Well, I just really embellished on the question I put in the charts, to be honest, so. In the Q&A answering in the Q&A. In the Q&A. No, I'm happy to start answering it. Jessica and I will try some.
Please go ahead. You probably have a better answer and then follow up. We can do something together. So there is this case study that I mentioned on the key role of funders for the implementation of pads in general. In that case study, which is one of the seven we have produced, you have a couple of references for national level pad strategies, often driven by funders in European countries, in knowledge exchange member states, the Netherlands, Finland, the UK are examples for countries where there is a national pad strategy.
So so Jessica will surely be able to tell us a little bit more about how that is carried out. Critically, I mean, the one that I think might be more useful for your question is the Dutch one that is available on Xanadu. But the reference I cannot provide it right now because I don't have it at hand, but it's on the list. In the bibliography for this case study on the key role of funders.
They have selected three pads, which they consider to be critical. Again, this is a funder driving the National level pad implementation in the Netherlands. So it is somewhat biased, perhaps to what they perceived as useful. The three IDs they have selected are orchids, raws for organizations and Doi based grant IDs for their projects for their grants.
These are the three key pads among these very wide range of identifiers that we have been talking about. And they provide a bit of a roadmap for the implementation. OK is there nearly there already? There is an ORCID consortium in the country. The idea would be to expand the coverage of this ORCID consortium to cover the other pads at a national level again.
And raws is the default. They want to apply for organizational IDs. And as mentioned, crossref Doi based grant IDs is the default approach for four grant ideas for persistence and for grants. Neither of them. So not raws and not grant IDs are available yet they are planning to implement them in the course of 2023.
So it's not like they are that much advanced other than being aware of what it is they would like to achieve. It is all very closely related to open sites implementation, of course. And perhaps, Jessica, you can comment a bit on the Finnish approach as well. If you have kind of specific ideas you're focusing on the RDA discussions, maybe. Cheers Yeah.
OK thank you. Yes so I think it has been a lot. It has taken many years in Finland, I think, to have this bringing people together and have these discussions. And and it hasn't been really easy to get all parties interested when needed. So I think the open science and the fair, FAIR principles have been really important this these initiatives in raising this issue and starting this discussion.
And and somehow I think it's very interesting system or ecosystem or phenomenon, this whole idea idea because of I think that this trust issue is so important. And also you need to raise the awareness so that the users can like ask for them and and for the pids. But on the other hand, as this report I think shows very well, that the end users don't really care or understand basically so much, but still you will need them to understand that this is a good thing.
So I think it has taken a lot of negotiation and many, many steps. But also I think that we in Finland, as we are a small country, we have been forced to do things in a quite centralized way. And this has been helpful also. And it has helped us greatly, I think, in bringing people like parties together and making I mean, people realize that it's cheaper and smarter to do it together.
So it's a lot about alignment and discussions and just agreeing on how to go about these things, I think. OK thank you, Jessica. And so I have a quick poll like question and you can I don't respond using the reactions just thumbs up. If you're interested about Tableau's suggestion of reprising pit palooza in some form, some fashion, we have 36 people here.
Thumbs up. Should we? This is not a scientific poll of any sort. But if you're interested. Thumbs up or. I'm seeing.
Mostly about half put in thumbs up. One person put a thumbs down. That's useful information. So maybe 18 of or so of 35. And one negative note that in the chat. Or in the Google doc, hopefully you have all access to that.
All right. So do we have more questions? Oh, really? She's suggesting that you put some comments on your vote, please. So maybe we have a thought. We have like a bit less than 10 minutes left or what is the schedule?
Actually, no. We want to give people a bit of a break before we start the next session. Yeah, somebody can stand up, stretch their legs. Although if your camera is off, we won't notice. So Yeah. Thank you so much for joining us for this session. Thank you to the speakers. And Gail, thank you for moderating.
As noted, we are recording all of this and we will post it all to our repository cashmore and fig share as well. So thank you very much and we will see you at the next session, which will begin promptly at the bottom of the hour, 1230 Eastern or GMT, 1730. Thanks, everyone. Q but thank you.
Segment:0 .
Thank you very much. I hope you can hear me. Well, I'm really glad to be here and to see you all on this, especially Jessica, I guess probably somewhere there. Yeah, just. Just popped it down on my screen. So welcome again.
Welcome to everyone. So I hope you do. And liked our session. This is now the Q&A and maybe you already have a few questions. Otherwise, I have a few that we could start with. If if you allow me, maybe this question will be, first of all, to Ulrich. There was more about the business model of identifiers.
Do you think know, the open source, open access community funding model is sustainable in the long run? And is there a difference between, you know, developed countries and less favored countries? What about also the price of getting a pid? Could you expand on that? OK Thanks a lot, Kyle. First, these are three questions. So I would style this as first aspect.
And I think the community funded model and the commercial approach shows some remarkable differences regarding how sustainability is produced defined. We found out that sustainability is both a cause and consequence of trust. A body is considered trustworthy if it is supported by a community, but this is only supported by the community if the community needs it and feels involved in decision making processes.
In this case, there is also a willingness to support the service financially, and this willingness to pay for something is a strong indicator of trust. Trust is in the community model. Model the trust is the basis of a payment course for payment, and this is needed to be sustainable. However, with commercial interest, I think it's perhaps more of a customer contractor relationship trust results than expectations that a service will be provided.
It is somewhat more, but is less commitment behind it. You pay and you have a right to service provision here. Payment is the basis of trust, not trust is the basis of payment. But I would not generalize that commercial payers serve the needs of a community overall. Often there are even more and more agl. Cross UI offers many advantages over the brand. And on the other hand, if you consider raw, which emphasizes community participation and engagement, raw nevertheless fulfils, for instance, the need of identifying organizational units or subunits worse than Ringgold does.
Coming back to your question, I guess sustainability exists when the service meets the needs of a community. And this capability is largely independent of the business model. With one exception in our study, it became clear that open data is an incredibly important signal of sustainability as it allows service recovery. And this is clearly more likely to be found in community models and in commercial models.
And when we have a look at the privileged or non privileged regions, and it's important to say that even if it's not the claim or the function of pids, these are perceived as markers of quality. And therefore it would reinforce the perceived gap between privileged and non privileged regions if the latter couldn't afford the utilization or adoption of priorities, especially since the adoption of ORCID or raw wood uses better rankings, ranking positions.
And here the community based services tend to be better suited to offer its services at moderate prices. And last point, what are the prizes for? It's a little bit hard to find out what the prize is because the funding is often somewhere somehow eclectic and not very transparent. The best figure I found was from an ORCID. A new report from 2021 and market states states that take up expenses in this year of about 4.1 million USD.
Now these are again, these are the expenses, 4.1 billion USD and in the same year they got million updated or added pocket records. But this would mean the price would be $1.1 per added edit or updated record. But of course this figure depends on how much you invest in marketing, hosting and also on whether the service is in a phase of growth, because then you have to integrate new features which result in higher costs.
Nevertheless, this might be more or less orientation. Thank you very much. Oldish any comments on that or questions to address? All to another speaker. Otherwise I can carry on because well, of course we're recording this session of a few weeks ago, so we've had time to reflect upon questions.
Maybe my second question will be for Jessica. And then the idea was, well, the question would be, what is the ultimate goal of fi? Is it to make Finnish research more competitive, more visible or more inclusive? And could you tell us a bit about how finish colors are evaluated? OK yes, I can try the I would say the research that five aims at all of these but maybe Yeah one of the main points why it has been such a big big effort has been that it has been the way actually which with the government wants to spread the funding or divide the funding to, to the universities.
So this has been a really. Really important tool. And also there is the evaluation is there is we have an organization for research ethics or integrity. And they have some rules and recommendations for assessment and good practice. And also there is a system where we assess papers or publication journals.
So they have different sort of points. But it's I think people are really hoping that we would get a more like qualitative assessment system than we have today. And this is, of course, an ongoing discussion. And we also try and the Ministry tries to and wants to pay attention to the open access and like their principles and stuff. And we are currently having these discussions, especially about data publication, that how can we even measure data publications or citations?
Because that's hideously difficult to measure. So yeah, it's, it's, it's a very interesting thing I think development because it makes it. So we have like it makes people want to or they have to and want to like conform with the shared information standards and practices regarding research information. And that's, that's useful. And that's the National policy you were mentioning in your presentation address this issue of this assessment of research.
Is it something. Do you. No, no, no, actually not. It's done in a different we have this open science and Research Coordination where they are making the negotiating about this national policy. So the discussion is happening there. Excellent yes, you can.
There are questions from the audience. Maybe I can turn so there's. Oh, maybe there is one. Yeah there's a question from Chris. Oh, I didn't see it. Chris, please. Everyone can unmute yourselves or you should be able to. There you go. Can you guys hear me?
Yes Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful presentations. I just wanted to at least think about an alternate view that fragmentation in the pit landscape is problematic in that you could argue that diversity in a set of approaches is a strength and a marker of resilience and the kind of organic process we've seen over the last, let's say, ten, 15 years of kids emerging by consensus process as being the ones that folks want to consolidate around, gives more opportunity to explore a variety of needs and use cases and different approaches.
I'm happy to take those guys. OK so, yeah, definitely. I mean, in the course of the interviews we carried out, I think several interviewees said that having competing approaches to implementing specific pads was a positive thing because it would improve us.
You would expect competition to course it would improve the quality of the outcomes. But then if you have two different initiatives. Targeting the same entity which are not talking to each other. I think that can be a bit problematic. So it's as if we had I mean, I mentioned already, this is the kind of best example we have and it's great to see so many things highlighted on the chart that you have on your website.
But it would be great if other less consolidated or currently less consolidated initiatives could kind of learn from the strongholds that or I mean, the milestones that ORCID has gone through in its process to become very well consolidated so that we can reach a decently built plane while we fly. It's this is kind of the issue we are highlighting on the title of the report that's too much fragmentation or too much diversity might put the whole thing at risk eventually because we it well very well it worked it worked very well with ORCIDs because it was so well designed and you had pretty much everyone on board.
But this is definitely not the case for all the initiatives that we are seeing right now. It's very wide and some of them are at a very early stage of development. And you could expect an enhanced recommendation for the Federation as a place as an organization where. Successful lessons could be learned by those who are other others, lower or other delayed stage in terms of their implementation.
I hope that kind of answers the question to some extent, at least. Thanks thank you, Pablo. Any other question from. From the floor? This one from Owen. Yeah hello, everyone. Yeah, I put a question in the chat.
And I'm from Nigeria where sort of the awareness and use of pets is not as. Not as far as maybe the global North. I'm we're trying to look at strategies to increase pet adoption. And one of the things we're trying to push our National Open science policies. And within those policies, we're talking about pids and how they should be utilized.
But from the presentations today, there's really so much to be considered around pids and formulating the strategy. I'm just wondering whether they should be separate, should be separated, or should they be integrated in terms of PID policies and open science policies, particularly at a national level? And I just wanted to get people's thoughts on that.
Taking into consideration, we're talking about Nigeria, which is not quite as sophisticated with the use of pids as maybe Europe and America. Maybe that's a question for you, Jessica, because you're the one speaking about the National policy and. Oh, well, I'm sorry. I have to admit, I was typing a reply in the chat here for a comment for the previous question because I didn't want to take to the floor.
So maybe if I could ask you to repeat the justice of or the. Well, I just really embellished on the question I put in the charts, to be honest, so. In the Q&A answering in the Q&A. In the Q&A. No, I'm happy to start answering it. Jessica and I will try some.
Please go ahead. You probably have a better answer and then follow up. We can do something together. So there is this case study that I mentioned on the key role of funders for the implementation of pads in general. In that case study, which is one of the seven we have produced, you have a couple of references for national level pad strategies, often driven by funders in European countries, in knowledge exchange member states, the Netherlands, Finland, the UK are examples for countries where there is a national pad strategy.
So so Jessica will surely be able to tell us a little bit more about how that is carried out. Critically, I mean, the one that I think might be more useful for your question is the Dutch one that is available on Xanadu. But the reference I cannot provide it right now because I don't have it at hand, but it's on the list. In the bibliography for this case study on the key role of funders.
They have selected three pads, which they consider to be critical. Again, this is a funder driving the National level pad implementation in the Netherlands. So it is somewhat biased, perhaps to what they perceived as useful. The three IDs they have selected are orchids, raws for organizations and Doi based grant IDs for their projects for their grants.
These are the three key pads among these very wide range of identifiers that we have been talking about. And they provide a bit of a roadmap for the implementation. OK is there nearly there already? There is an ORCID consortium in the country. The idea would be to expand the coverage of this ORCID consortium to cover the other pads at a national level again.
And raws is the default. They want to apply for organizational IDs. And as mentioned, crossref Doi based grant IDs is the default approach for four grant ideas for persistence and for grants. Neither of them. So not raws and not grant IDs are available yet they are planning to implement them in the course of 2023.
So it's not like they are that much advanced other than being aware of what it is they would like to achieve. It is all very closely related to open sites implementation, of course. And perhaps, Jessica, you can comment a bit on the Finnish approach as well. If you have kind of specific ideas you're focusing on the RDA discussions, maybe. Cheers Yeah.
OK thank you. Yes so I think it has been a lot. It has taken many years in Finland, I think, to have this bringing people together and have these discussions. And and it hasn't been really easy to get all parties interested when needed. So I think the open science and the fair, FAIR principles have been really important this these initiatives in raising this issue and starting this discussion.
And and somehow I think it's very interesting system or ecosystem or phenomenon, this whole idea idea because of I think that this trust issue is so important. And also you need to raise the awareness so that the users can like ask for them and and for the pids. But on the other hand, as this report I think shows very well, that the end users don't really care or understand basically so much, but still you will need them to understand that this is a good thing.
So I think it has taken a lot of negotiation and many, many steps. But also I think that we in Finland, as we are a small country, we have been forced to do things in a quite centralized way. And this has been helpful also. And it has helped us greatly, I think, in bringing people like parties together and making I mean, people realize that it's cheaper and smarter to do it together.
So it's a lot about alignment and discussions and just agreeing on how to go about these things, I think. OK thank you, Jessica. And so I have a quick poll like question and you can I don't respond using the reactions just thumbs up. If you're interested about Tableau's suggestion of reprising pit palooza in some form, some fashion, we have 36 people here.
Thumbs up. Should we? This is not a scientific poll of any sort. But if you're interested. Thumbs up or. I'm seeing.
Mostly about half put in thumbs up. One person put a thumbs down. That's useful information. So maybe 18 of or so of 35. And one negative note that in the chat. Or in the Google doc, hopefully you have all access to that.
All right. So do we have more questions? Oh, really? She's suggesting that you put some comments on your vote, please. So maybe we have a thought. We have like a bit less than 10 minutes left or what is the schedule?
Actually, no. We want to give people a bit of a break before we start the next session. Yeah, somebody can stand up, stretch their legs. Although if your camera is off, we won't notice. So Yeah. Thank you so much for joining us for this session. Thank you to the speakers. And Gail, thank you for moderating.
As noted, we are recording all of this and we will post it all to our repository cashmore and fig share as well. So thank you very much and we will see you at the next session, which will begin promptly at the bottom of the hour, 1230 Eastern or GMT, 1730. Thanks, everyone. Q but thank you.
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode