Dan Wing <[email protected]> wrote: > [John Leslie [mailto:[email protected]] wrote:] >> Dan Wing <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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, >> >> 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! > > That reduces the efficiency of the meeting for the in-person attendees --
(Note the "attendee" vs. "participant" usage, which IMHO honestly expresses our viewpoints...) > because what you are suggesting is that the speaker learn the white > boarding software (right then and there) or the speaker avoid > whiteboarding entirely. 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.) > And many get muted because of heavy breathing, automobile noises, > 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.) >>> 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, > > 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. 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. >> >> 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. > > Why is that, do you suppose? 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...) -- John Leslie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
