4 ms·
I'm still amazed that current video conference doesn't have a "wait to signal" on the UI. Video conf people, if you're reading this: Study what's the regula
by tumetab1 6y ago
I'm still amazed that current video conference doesn't have a "wait to signal" on the UI.
Video conf people, if you're reading this:
Study what's the regular "wait to talk time" for a face to face conversation - let's assume 250 ms.
Measure audio/video latency (from remote capture, encoding, transmission, display) - let's assume 100ms.
Add a listening progress bar to video that's filled when someone else speaks un-fills when 250 + 100 ms has passed.
Add a speaking progress bar that fills when when the person speaks and un-fills when 250 ms has passed.
It's not great or polished idea but I have no idea why this doesn't exist yet. We need a visual indicator when to talk on video conference because our human metrics are not calibrated for it.
- Xenograph 6y agoShouldn't it be 250 - 100 ms (rather than plus)? The person who was talking is silent for that extra 100ms while they wait for their words to reach their peer.
- tumetab1 6y agoMaybe, I'm not completely clear on this could work. What I imagine is that when I'm listening I need to wait the regular wait time plus network lag because the speaker may have resume speaking. The speaker needs to resume speaking before 250 + 100 has passed so that others don't start talking before the speaker resumes.