5 ms·

Everyone always talks about videoconferencing and cameras but do you really need to see faces? At my company we just dropped the cameras. We can still share s

by clarry 7y ago

Everyone always talks about videoconferencing and cameras but do you really need to see faces? At my company we just dropped the cameras. We can still share screen if needed but we didn't gain much of value from seeing faces and the occasional bandwidth issues mostly vanished. I don't think anyone misses the video.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
If you know everyone well, sure. But often videoconferencing in larger institutions involves at least some strangers.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  ... so? I work in an org that's spread across the US. I work with people on the opposite side of the country who I've never met in person and I have no idea what they look like. I also don't care.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    You don't care who's talking?
    - 0xffff2 7y ago
      I don't care what they look like. After talking to them once or twice on the phone, they're completely recognizable by voice alone, even on our terribly antiquated conferencing system.
      - cableshaft 7y ago
        I had a guy I've worked with for the past year finally put a profile picture on his account, and I saw his face for the first time. Was a bit of a shock, since it wasn't what I pictured from his voice. But it's no big deal I pictured someone that looked a bit different. I barely think about what people look like now at my job, even the people I used to work with every day in person (when we still had an office); they're mostly just distinctive voices to me now.
- clarry 7y ago
  Does it really matter? I've had call conferences with people I've never seen, and it really hasn't been a problem.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    With a group in a conference room, it can be hard to tell who's talking. Because you don't know their voice. Or there are several people, and you don't know which new voice is who's.
    - clarry 7y ago
      Oh yeah, conference rooms are annoying (for multiple reasons). We don't really do that, everyone participates using their own device, and the tools then show who's speaking.
0xffff2 7y ago
I'm honestly flabbergasted that so many people on HN take video as a given. I don't even have a webcam at work, and I have no desire at all to get one.
- clarry 7y ago
  Also, some of the conferencing tools take it for granted. My work laptop has a camera, and it always activates by default when we start a call, and I have to manually turn the video feed off every time. Browser asks for permission to use the camera, but if I deny it, the application refuses to work at all!
toast0 7y ago
If the video works well, I think it can be useful, especially when there's only a few people per camera -- watching people's (well synchronized) faces while they speak helps with comprehension, and watching faces while you speak helps confirm if what you said was understood. If the video isn't working well, it's definitely distracting and not very useful.
crazygringo 7y ago
> do you really need to see faces? The research I've seen points to a huge, unambiguous, flashing YES. The fact is that a majority of communication is nonverbal and emotional. And this is just as true in business meetings as it is in your personal relationships. Video allows us to better understand when someone is done talking and we can speak without interrupting. It allows us to better understand if someone is being intentionally disrespectful or merely clueless. It lets us see if someone is deeply concerned or merely mildly interested. It lets us see if someone is being silent because they're zoning out or because they're furious but resigned. All these cues (and hundreds more) allow conversations to 1) proceed far more smoothly and efficiently, packing more productivity into a single meeting, and 2) avoid misunderstandings which can be affect both the material outcomes of meetings as well as damage interpersonal relationships. Many people think video is unimportant, but that's because when it's lacking, we make assumptions about people on the other end for lack of evidence -- assumptions that can turn out to be wildly untrue. Because we have no immediate evidence to the contrary, we assume we're not missing anything. This is why research is so important -- it shows that plenty of normal human communication tasks often perform far better with video, and more frequently fail without it.
- ScottFree 7y ago
  The cues only work if they're delivered in a timely manner, though. I would argue highly compressed and delayed video is actually worse and more frustrating than having no video at all. This is one of the few arguments against remote work I actually agree with: streaming video technology still isn't good enough to replace in person haptic communication.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    As its done now, yes streaming video is problematic. I worked at Sococo, and back when we made our own solution we had good low-latency video. Careful bandwidth control and stream-sharing did a lot to make it more useful.
    - ScottFree 7y ago

by clarry 7y ago

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

If you know everyone well, sure. But often videoconferencing in larger institutions involves at least some strangers.

0xffff2 7y ago
... so? I work in an org that's spread across the US. I work with people on the opposite side of the country who I've never met in person and I have no idea what they look like. I also don't care.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  You don't care who's talking?
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    I don't care what they look like. After talking to them once or twice on the phone, they're completely recognizable by voice alone, even on our terribly antiquated conferencing system.
    - cableshaft 7y ago
      I had a guy I've worked with for the past year finally put a profile picture on his account, and I saw his face for the first time. Was a bit of a shock, since it wasn't what I pictured from his voice. But it's no big deal I pictured someone that looked a bit different. I barely think about what people look like now at my job, even the people I used to work with every day in person (when we still had an office); they're mostly just distinctive voices to me now.
clarry 7y ago
Does it really matter? I've had call conferences with people I've never seen, and it really hasn't been a problem.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  With a group in a conference room, it can be hard to tell who's talking. Because you don't know their voice. Or there are several people, and you don't know which new voice is who's.
  - clarry 7y ago
    Oh yeah, conference rooms are annoying (for multiple reasons). We don't really do that, everyone participates using their own device, and the tools then show who's speaking.

0xffff2 7y ago

I'm honestly flabbergasted that so many people on HN take video as a given. I don't even have a webcam at work, and I have no desire at all to get one.

clarry 7y ago
Also, some of the conferencing tools take it for granted. My work laptop has a camera, and it always activates by default when we start a call, and I have to manually turn the video feed off every time. Browser asks for permission to use the camera, but if I deny it, the application refuses to work at all!

toast0 7y ago

If the video works well, I think it can be useful, especially when there's only a few people per camera -- watching people's (well synchronized) faces while they speak helps with comprehension, and watching faces while you speak helps confirm if what you said was understood. If the video isn't working well, it's definitely distracting and not very useful.

crazygringo 7y ago

> do you really need to see faces? The research I've seen points to a huge, unambiguous, flashing YES. The fact is that a majority of communication is nonverbal and emotional. And this is just as true in business meetings as it is in your personal relationships. Video allows us to better understand when someone is done talking and we can speak without interrupting. It allows us to better understand if someone is being intentionally disrespectful or merely clueless. It lets us see if someone is deeply concerned or merely mildly interested. It lets us see if someone is being silent because they're zoning out or because they're furious but resigned. All these cues (and hundreds more) allow conversations to 1) proceed far more smoothly and efficiently, packing more productivity into a single meeting, and 2) avoid misunderstandings which can be affect both the material outcomes of meetings as well as damage interpersonal relationships. Many people think video is unimportant, but that's because when it's lacking, we make assumptions about people on the other end for lack of evidence -- assumptions that can turn out to be wildly untrue. Because we have no immediate evidence to the contrary, we assume we're not missing anything. This is why research is so important -- it shows that plenty of normal human communication tasks often perform far better with video, and more frequently fail without it.

ScottFree 7y ago
The cues only work if they're delivered in a timely manner, though. I would argue highly compressed and delayed video is actually worse and more frustrating than having no video at all. This is one of the few arguments against remote work I actually agree with: streaming video technology still isn't good enough to replace in person haptic communication.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  As its done now, yes streaming video is problematic. I worked at Sococo, and back when we made our own solution we had good low-latency video. Careful bandwidth control and stream-sharing did a lot to make it more useful.
  - ScottFree 7y ago