3 ms·
Why? The audio component, if it's bad, makes you hard to understand and makes its harder to contribute. The visual component is basically just a way for people
by Macha 6y ago
Why? The audio component, if it's bad, makes you hard to understand and makes its harder to contribute. The visual component is basically just a way for people to know that I'm there and a backup channel to indicate that yes, I am aware meet has once again decided not to recognise my mic and that I'm working on it. If I find a workplace that's ergonomic and works with my home environment, then the fact that there's a window with bright objects visible behind it that screws with the auto balance on the webcam 2 hours a day is a distant concern. I'm not going to compromise on the prior points to fix that.
- ghaff 6y ago>Why? First of all I agree that if you could only fix one thing, audio should take priority. Fortunately that's pretty easy. I guess my context is that I'm on video a lot including with large audiences and for external consumption. So, yes, it matters to me whether my video is good. I also know people whose video is routinely terrible that they could likely improve significantly with very little effort.
- curryst 6y agoI don't have data, but I strongly suspect it has an impact in the same way audio does. That person who's office is so dark their webcam gets grainy trying to compensate just looks less professional. Like it or not, videoconferencing is becoming more and more a professional skill, and part of that skill is being able to get decent audio and video quality. > there's a window with bright objects visible behind it that screws with the auto balance on the webcam 2 hours a day is a distant concern On the other hand, those are the only two hours a day where you have anything approximating in-person contact with your coworkers. Those two hours probably have an outsized effect on what your coworkers think of you.