I'm hoping the increasing visibility of the climate crisis will make it socially acceptable to push even more business travel to videoconferencing. I think it will take a significant stigma before putting someone on a plane to show a partner how important they are will go away.
-
-
Replying to @dgentry
It’s not all just for show though. There’s a remarkable value to seeing people in person that can be hard to recognize when you mostly deal with people nearby.
0 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @dave_universetf @dgentry
I agree with this intuitively, but I’d be interested to know if there’s any way to study it conclusively. Is there an exorbitantly expensive videoconference system that *does* feel as good as a whiteboard? If so we can just subtract elements until it’s not as good anymore :)
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think the way to study it would be with on-site test subjects then start degrading the meeting, glass barrier, audio encoding, video screen, latency, etc. But the results would be frustratingly obvious: get better screens, speakers, and links than practicably exist today.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
FWIW I suspect better screens and speakers (and microphones!!) than what people typically use are very possible, just cost more money than people are typically willing to invest. Network links, I'm not as sure. Video encoders (=> high latency) are a big part of the problem.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @apenwarr @davidcrawshaw and
I suspect one issue is that there's a chicken and egg problem between hardware and software. I've been trying out a decent full frame video camera for VCs (I have the camera anyway). It's significantly better than a webcam in zoom, but barely or maybe not better in hangouts.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
This was true even in A/B tests that are from one room in a house to another room in the same house with gigabit fiber. If you look at local video, there's a *huge* difference in quality, but software assumes you have a very low quality webcam and compresses away the differences.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
(you can see a difference in hangouts because DoF is much shallower, but the quality of the in-focus regions isn't much different IMO). I imagine something similar is true of microphones although I haven't tested high end mics, without testing I'd bet this is true of speakers.
-
-
Hangouts is so incredibly bad. An entire generation of engineering went into "it must always work on the lowest of low-end" at the expense of quality.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.