Keith: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Gurstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 10:58 AM Subject: Re: Distance-working/Low-rise buildings
>>I've been wrong before--anyone remember video-phones? > > These were really jerky and crummy and it wasn't surprising that they > didn't take off. > They were jerky and crummy but the same arguments about saving travel money were trotted out... but they never took off... The reason wasn't I think, the technical ones--but rather the social benefits/perks that come from travel. Telework or telecommuting is something different... It hasn't taken off partly for the reasons that Brad mentions--the boss wanting to see bums in seats, but mostly because telework requires a rather significant re-organization in how work is structured so as to allow for the absence of f2f access for information sharing, performance review/monitoring, document distribution and so on. Telecommuting should probably be seen as a form of "outsourcing", but intra-company with all the needs for re-adjustment of processes and expectations that go with that and with the high likelihood of failure that went with a lot of corporate "outsourcing". > This is interesting! What is the set-up. Is this is where someone is > speaking 1:1, or 1:group, or 1 of any in group:1 of any in group? (This > shows my ignorance of videoconferencing.) If you have time I'd like to know > exactly what is tedious about it -- if it's possible to describe. Are there > too many time lapses? Is it lack of decent camera angles? Is it the > artificiality of the situation? > > I'd be fascinated to know, if you can put your finger on it. > > My guess (and this is a pure guess) is that might be to do with direction > of gaze (the lack of, at present) -- that is, the subtleties of it that go > on naturally when one is talking in a real group situation. Perhaps, at the > end of the day, really satisfying videoconferencing can only take place > when each person can actually see the rest of the group before him on the > screen as though in a real room and can direct his gaze accordingly when > speaking. This, of course, would need massive software/processing power and > thus could be many years off. > > But today we have the launch in Tokyo of the world's first 3G mobilephone > -- from NTT DoCoMo -- to be called 'Foma'. Videophoning is one of its uses > and it'll be interesting to see whether this might be the 'killer ap' that > telecomm firms that have invested so much in 3G licences are so desperate > for. However, most European 3G firms, including Vodaphone, think that the > technology is not good enough yet, so Foma might not take off. We'll have > to see. > As for why my students found video-conferencing boring--I suspect that it has to do with the lack of what Ray calls the multi-chromatic elements of communication--the subtleties of facial expression, eye and body movements, the play of light in a room and the interplay between the characters sitting around the table. What is being video-conferenced it seems are talking heads and that with relatively limited production values, a degree of technical jitter and the normal droning on of corporate communications (a couple of these are insurance companies!). What is interesting though is that it has now become "routine" in these companies, to the point where it is boring (but then so are most f2f meetings). The latest buzz is about the use of Broadband with multiple cameras and thus multiple perspectives being available (but of course, then you need a video producer to manage your meetings!) or the re-creation in (virtual) three dimensions of the folks sitting around the table as holograms/avatars able to interact with each other in real-time--holodecks anyone--this is available now in experimental form BTW... Mike Gurstein > Keith >
