Subject: [vmeet] in-person and remote attendees: all or nothing?

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:29:03 -0800

How can we best handle both in-person and remote attendees?  Remote
attendees get frustrated with speakers/chairs using visual queues or
pointing at slides, while in-person attendees are frustrated with remote
speakers that don't pause when the entire room is confused by their
presentation (and cannot see the frowning).

In my company, for some meetings, we have switched to have 100% in-person
attendees or 100% remote attendees, which seems to resolve several of the
issues.

Comments?

-d

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:41:34 -0800

> attendees or 100% remote attendees, which seems to resolve several of the

This feels like a vote for "jabber-to-mic", which allows a remote person to at least channel to a local one.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:59:15 +0530

> presentation (and cannot see the frowning).

In my experience with dozens of such mixed sessions, I have found that a
simple visual backchannel using a simple wide angle shot Webcam,
streamed out, provides the presented with an idea of the reception their
presentation is getting with the in-house participants and I have
noticed that waving frantically to let them know they are not coming
through well (technical problem, or going to fast, or worse still, going
too slow) works.
Alternatively other text-based back-channels work too, but there needs
to be some strict adherence to basic rules for two way interaction to be
productive. You *always* need some kind of common virtual desktop.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:43:41 -0500

Dan Wing <[email-masked]> wrote:
> pointing at slides,

   There are many whiteboard facilities within conferencing software
which can reduce those problems.

   But the learning curve for them is substantial enough that most folks
haven't learned to use them. :^(

   In which case, the remote participant needs to speak up!

> while in-person attendees are frustrated with remote speakers that
> don't pause when the entire room is confused by their presentation
> (and cannot see the frowning).

   Though the exact details aren't fully clear, we certainly could
imagine a video feed to the remote participant _showing_ the confusion.

> attendees or 100% remote attendees, which seems to resolve several of the

   I wouldn't want to retreat that far. We can't seem to get all the
players to physically attend IETF weeks.

   Furthermore, IMHO, all-remote meetings become exhausting after about
45 minutes.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:33:01 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Leslie [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:44 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [vmeet] in-person and remote attendees: all or nothing?
> 

That reduces the efficiency of the meeting for the in-person attendees --
because what you are suggesting is that the speaker learn the white
boarding software (right then and there) or the speaker avoid 
whiteboarding entirely.

And many get muted because of heavy breathing, automobile noises,
dogs barking in the background, and so on.

>    Though the exact details aren't fully clear,

Maybe it's just me, but when I give a presentation and a majority of
the attendees look confused, I back up and try explaining in a 
different way.  A remote attendee has little chance for that feedback.

> we certainly could

Why is that, do you suppose?

-d

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:58:13 -0500

> Why is that, do you suppose?

Well, I don't know about the 45 minute rule, but they do become
exhausting after a while.
I think that that is partially that, if you are in the room, you can
dial your attention up or down,
while remotely (at least, without some sort of telepresence), you have
to pay pretty much constant attention or you get lost,
and that does get exhausting.

Regards
Marshall

>
> -d
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:20:35 -0500

Dan Wing <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [John Leslie [mailto:[email-masked]] wrote:]
>> But the learning curve for them is substantial enough that most
>> folks haven't learned to use them. :^(
>>

   (Note the "attendee" vs. "participant" usage, which IMHO honestly
expresses our viewpoints...)

> boarding software (right then and there) or the speaker avoid 

   I am certainly _not_ proposing that speakers avoid whiteboarding
entirely.

   As for "learn the whiteboarding software" in real-time, that may
need to happen -- if there is no other practical time. I find this
happening in-real-time in all-virtual meetings I participate in --
and the disruption is manageable, so long as folks believe the
learning will stick and benefit future virtual meetings.

   YMMV... I'm not "suggesting" that either.

   What I am suggesting is that when something appears on the local
screen but not the remote screen(s), to be a "participant" the remote
person has to speak up. (Typically we don't.)

> dogs barking in the background, and so on.

   Yes, these are real problems. There is perhaps a requirement we
haven't started word-smithing:

- that audio suppiled by remote participants be purged of distracting
  external noises.

   (I'm not going into possible technical solutions, just requirements.)

> different way.  A remote attendee has little chance for that feedback.

   Umm... read the rest of my sentence...

>> we certainly could imagine a video feed to the remote participant
>> _showing_ the confusion.

   Alas, some presenters just slog on. :^(

   It might help to have, in addition to the "I have a question" button,
another "I'm too confused to even ask a question" button.

   Local _participants_ should be able to manage such buttons.

   Perhaps we should try for a requirement like:

- a remote presenter must be given feedback showing when participants
  aren't able to follow his presentation.

>>> In my company, for some meetings, we have switched to have 100% in-
>>> person attendees or 100% remote attendees, which seems to resolve
>>> several of the issues.
>> 

   Perhaps it has to do with the lack of informal communication with
the folks sitting next to you?

   I may be an outlier here: I tend to be taking semi-official notes at
all-remote meetings, and that all by itself gets tiring after 45 minutes.

   But I think some of it is related to the unnatural audio. You have
to distinguish speakers without any spatial clues showing where physically
the sound originates. (If anyone can help, we're struggling with that on
the CLUE list right now...)

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 08:53:16 -0800

>    Local _participants_ should be able to manage such buttons.

They do -- by the "deer in headlights" look, by opening laptops
or phones and surfing the Internet, take a break outside the
room, napping, etc.

>   aren't able to follow his presentation.

I have used two different conferencing systems with 'raise hand'
functionality.  That isn't quite the right model, IMO.  But, yes,
we should capture some sort of requirement like what you wrote.

> the sound originates. (If anyone can help, we're struggling with that
> on the CLUE list right now...)

-d