4 ms·

I don’t think seeing where someone is reading is enticing. I thing it’s best to extend the experience of the physical world (and if that works, it can evolve).

by gumby 3y ago

I don’t think seeing where someone is reading is enticing. I thing it’s best to extend the experience of the physical world (and if that works, it can evolve). Ambient presence is an important goal. I’ve been running remote companies for almost 35 years and have been trying to achieve some level of this. I’ve tried a few times to connect a couple of offices by just putting up a tablet running a chat (first Skype — that’s how long ago!) and later FaceTime. The idea is to not be spying on anyone, but showing what others would see if they were there: basically you could glance over and see if Jo was around, or basically see that Jo looks like they are really concentrating so no wonder they don’t respond to my slack. Or “look, those guys have a visit from jim’s partner!” This is harder than it seems — the software isn’t designed to run continuously and the cameras aren’t really right.

michaelmior 3y ago
I think for many people, one of the advantages of working remotely is that it's possible to have more privacy. I'm not sure live video for the entire work day in any form is a great solution.
- gumby 3y ago
  In my mind (and my attempts) the question went back to “ambient presence”, meaning extending the existing proximal environment. I agree a camera on a person is almost always bad, and an involuntary camera on a person is always bad. But what about connecting two offices? If I stand in one corner I have a very low resolution understanding of what’s going on — can’t really see any screens, just get a general gestalt of the energy level, if Bob looks like he’s concentrating etc. Maybe I’d walk over to the next room, see across the room that he’s busy, so send him email instead. I’d like that kind of thing, and that kind of thing not using a traffic light on a dashboard but something that used human senses, intuition, and affordances. But we are far from solving this problem.
  - michaelmior 3y ago
    One high-level approach that might work is to have a fully-local app monitor the user (possibly including the camera, current activity, etc.) and then expose some high-level information to the rest of the team. I think this could potentially work well, although it would be hard to do it in a way users can trust.
kaashif 3y ago
I find having the camera on distracting and/or stressful to me in a way that I don't find in person interactions. I'm not sure why. Always on camera just seems stressful and I hate the idea. I don't have any data or even anecdotes, just these vague feelings.
- gumby 3y ago
  Yeah, a camera on an individual (or seeing their cursor on the same file, and knowing the other sees yours) triggers a lot of performance anxiety, for good reason. You know the famous quips by various famous people at parties? They spent hours thinking them up ahead of time and waiting for the right moment to whip them out. Who wants to live that way, especially at work? Yet we do take pleasure doing things together in other domains, not always talking. Consider hiking, sailing, or building something together. Why can’t we have that same feeling while working? See my response to the comment you were responding to for some other thoughts in this regard.
patcon 3y ago
> I don’t think seeing where someone is reading is enticing. I agree that if we explode the word "reading" into everything it might be an analog for, then some of this could make more sense. If "reading" a page on the web is supposed to be an analog of "reading a book", maybe most don't want to see others. But if "reading" a page on the web is supposed to be an analog of "attending a lecture" or "showing up to vote" or "standing in line to buy a ticket", then "reading a book" may not be the best frame of reference :) (I think about this stuff a lot. I lean extroverted. Maggie and I seem to be working through the same thoughts I've been picking through for the last few years, so I'm definitely a bit biased as to the wisdom of the post :)
dgreensp 3y ago
I agree that seeing where someone is reading (with blobs moving around in your visual field while you are trying to read) is not good. It doesn't correspond to any physical experience of being in a room with someone, or any positive, helpful experience of collaboration. There's a reason we don't attend lectures with laser pointers strapped to our heads, to make visible where everyone's eyeballs are looking on the projector screen or whiteboard. When I'm reading a magazine in a waiting room, I'm not socially isolated by the fact that the reading experience is not a synchronous collaboration with other people around the world. The fact that this idea was even proposed and explored makes me think there are some common-sense principles and ground rules that are not being followed, like a first filter after brainstorming new digital experiences. For example, hmm, brainstorming here, part of working in the same room as other people is you can hear their phones buzzing when they get texts. What if we made an app that gets notified when one of your friends' phones buzzes, for any reason, and it makes your phone buzz at a lower volume, so it's more like you're in the same room even if you are on the other side of the world? No, that is a bad idea because it would just be annoying and distracting. One should ask, under what circumstances do people currently read the same thing at the same time, in each other's presence? What creates a feeling of presence in this case? What makes the experience feel better or worse? Do we even care what strangers are reading? In a meeting, people are usually reading on their own screens or pages, or one person reads to another or to the group. There are situations like reading the same sign at a museum exhibit or art gallery, where there is presence with a stranger (which may or may not even be a positive thing). I think the first thing my brain needs to know is how many people are standing around next to me. Reddit threads have a little indicator that says something like "17 people here." To have a blurry cursor blob suddenly moving across my screen without an indication of how many people are "here" is disorienting. That doesn't happen in real life unless someone is out of sight playing with a laser pointer or flashlight, or there's a sniper. I really would hope this would be 101-level thinking for this field. I've worked at workplaces that had a video "portal" between two office locations, and that worked fine, if you could choose whether you want to work in view of the camera.
- jayd16 3y ago
  > seeing where someone is reading [...] doesn't correspond to any physical experience I don't know if I agree with that. You can follow someone's gaze fairly easily. At a train stop, you can see if they're reading the map, watching birds or what have you. You can tell if someone is looking at something that interests you as well.

by gumby 3y ago

michaelmior 3y ago

I think for many people, one of the advantages of working remotely is that it's possible to have more privacy. I'm not sure live video for the entire work day in any form is a great solution.

gumby 3y ago
In my mind (and my attempts) the question went back to “ambient presence”, meaning extending the existing proximal environment. I agree a camera on a person is almost always bad, and an involuntary camera on a person is always bad. But what about connecting two offices? If I stand in one corner I have a very low resolution understanding of what’s going on — can’t really see any screens, just get a general gestalt of the energy level, if Bob looks like he’s concentrating etc. Maybe I’d walk over to the next room, see across the room that he’s busy, so send him email instead. I’d like that kind of thing, and that kind of thing not using a traffic light on a dashboard but something that used human senses, intuition, and affordances. But we are far from solving this problem.
- michaelmior 3y ago
  One high-level approach that might work is to have a fully-local app monitor the user (possibly including the camera, current activity, etc.) and then expose some high-level information to the rest of the team. I think this could potentially work well, although it would be hard to do it in a way users can trust.

kaashif 3y ago

I find having the camera on distracting and/or stressful to me in a way that I don't find in person interactions. I'm not sure why. Always on camera just seems stressful and I hate the idea. I don't have any data or even anecdotes, just these vague feelings.

gumby 3y ago
Yeah, a camera on an individual (or seeing their cursor on the same file, and knowing the other sees yours) triggers a lot of performance anxiety, for good reason. You know the famous quips by various famous people at parties? They spent hours thinking them up ahead of time and waiting for the right moment to whip them out. Who wants to live that way, especially at work? Yet we do take pleasure doing things together in other domains, not always talking. Consider hiking, sailing, or building something together. Why can’t we have that same feeling while working? See my response to the comment you were responding to for some other thoughts in this regard.

patcon 3y ago

> I don’t think seeing where someone is reading is enticing. I agree that if we explode the word "reading" into everything it might be an analog for, then some of this could make more sense. If "reading" a page on the web is supposed to be an analog of "reading a book", maybe most don't want to see others. But if "reading" a page on the web is supposed to be an analog of "attending a lecture" or "showing up to vote" or "standing in line to buy a ticket", then "reading a book" may not be the best frame of reference :) (I think about this stuff a lot. I lean extroverted. Maggie and I seem to be working through the same thoughts I've been picking through for the last few years, so I'm definitely a bit biased as to the wisdom of the post :)

dgreensp 3y ago

I agree that seeing where someone is reading (with blobs moving around in your visual field while you are trying to read) is not good. It doesn't correspond to any physical experience of being in a room with someone, or any positive, helpful experience of collaboration. There's a reason we don't attend lectures with laser pointers strapped to our heads, to make visible where everyone's eyeballs are looking on the projector screen or whiteboard. When I'm reading a magazine in a waiting room, I'm not socially isolated by the fact that the reading experience is not a synchronous collaboration with other people around the world. The fact that this idea was even proposed and explored makes me think there are some common-sense principles and ground rules that are not being followed, like a first filter after brainstorming new digital experiences. For example, hmm, brainstorming here, part of working in the same room as other people is you can hear their phones buzzing when they get texts. What if we made an app that gets notified when one of your friends' phones buzzes, for any reason, and it makes your phone buzz at a lower volume, so it's more like you're in the same room even if you are on the other side of the world? No, that is a bad idea because it would just be annoying and distracting. One should ask, under what circumstances do people currently read the same thing at the same time, in each other's presence? What creates a feeling of presence in this case? What makes the experience feel better or worse? Do we even care what strangers are reading? In a meeting, people are usually reading on their own screens or pages, or one person reads to another or to the group. There are situations like reading the same sign at a museum exhibit or art gallery, where there is presence with a stranger (which may or may not even be a positive thing). I think the first thing my brain needs to know is how many people are standing around next to me. Reddit threads have a little indicator that says something like "17 people here." To have a blurry cursor blob suddenly moving across my screen without an indication of how many people are "here" is disorienting. That doesn't happen in real life unless someone is out of sight playing with a laser pointer or flashlight, or there's a sniper. I really would hope this would be 101-level thinking for this field. I've worked at workplaces that had a video "portal" between two office locations, and that worked fine, if you could choose whether you want to work in view of the camera.

jayd16 3y ago
> seeing where someone is reading [...] doesn't correspond to any physical experience I don't know if I agree with that. You can follow someone's gaze fairly easily. At a train stop, you can see if they're reading the map, watching birds or what have you. You can tell if someone is looking at something that interests you as well.