Study is full of easily poked at holes. Pairs were assigned at random and the study was short. That alone could create bias in favor of in-person. It also igno

Study is full of easily poked at holes. Pairs were assigned at random and the study was short. That alone could create bias in favor of in-person. It also ignores many real life settings not working in pairs, but larger groups at dedicated moments while stuffed with solo work otherwise (retrospectives and sprint planning say hi). Pairs interacted with a single 15 inch screen. I mean, come on. Focus was primarily on video, then extrapolates to the entirety of virtual (audio-only exists too). >By contrast, we found preliminary evidence that decision quality was positively impacted by virtual interaction. In-person teams had a significantly higher top-scoring idea in their generated idea pool This seems far more important than it's given space for, too. What good is quantity in the face of quality and bias? Disclaimer: I do personally believe in-person to have more potential, but this ain't it chief.