Re: [Tools-discuss] MeetEcho A/V UI Suggestion

Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Wed, 29 July 2020 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB493A0F28 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OADmFyEASqgb for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 618E93A0F25 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51422B68325A; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:25:36 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E2G06bz9O2g9; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:25:35 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.6] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B5DFCB683251; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:25:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: tools-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:25:35 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5699)
Message-ID: <F5F9488A-D7C9-4999-A00E-9F8785448546@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <CBAE0471-3916-45FE-984B-C5DBD44B522E@tzi.org>
References: <392D436C-C6E4-4BA3-A619-5D615D78F190@episteme.net> <CBAE0471-3916-45FE-984B-C5DBD44B522E@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"; markup="markdown"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/Q2oneNVoZ3CGZCjx6yfZ2De2Hbc>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] MeetEcho A/V UI Suggestion
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 21:25:44 -0000

On 29 Jul 2020, at 15:56, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> On 2020-07-29, at 22:42, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> wrote:
>>
>> The Floor
>
> Makes a lot of sense.
>
> As a refinement, I would offer that there is a difference between the 
> Mic line (where you are seen and speaking, but can naturally take 
> turns), and taking over the projector (of which there is only one in 
> the room).  So granting someone the Mic doesn’t mean that they 
> should be (willfully or accidentally) replacing the shared screen.

I agree. I thought about adding something about sharing the screen 
(i.e., projecting a presentation), but because you really only want one 
screen shared at a time, it seemed like a pretty separate function. I 
think something like the "presentation token" being handed to (or taken 
away from) anyone on the Floor by the chair is the right concept.

> That is even more important as there
> are usually three roles on the floor:
>
> — Chairs
> — Presenters
> — Head of mic line, plus possible someone standing there with you as 
> a counterpoint

Yes, though I think it is reasonable in some groups (as I have seen us 
do in person) to have between 2 and 4 people who are neither the 
Presenter or the Chair in a colloquy on the floor about some particular 
point. I like the UI of having a Floor where any number of people (as 
granted or tolerated by the chair) can all have their mics and videos on 
at their discretion and engage in a discussion.

Zoom has their "webinar" concept, where there are three similar 
categories, but they are much more constrained than MeetEcho (which is 
one of the reasons that I like MeetEcho for our purposes).

> Apart from that (important) detail, I think that moving the interface 
> from thinking in terms of media streams (which are the natural way of 
> thinking for a Meetecho developer) to actual application concepts such 
> as “The Floor”, “The presenter” (what a meeting participant 
> has in mind) makes sense.

Exactly my thought. "Media Streams" is a developer's concept. It mostly 
(and accidentally) corresponds to the floor, but it makes the UI a bit 
weird.

> Usually each participant can decide at the start of the meeting 
> whether they want to be seen, and can get the camera access dialog 
> behind them (same for mic access dialog).
> The chairs can decide whether they want to have a gallery view (rare, 
> but sometimes useful) or the usual screen-sharing one for the segment 
> of the meeting.

Yep.

> (And I like meetecho’s current ability to rudely grab the Mic, which 
> is a bit like “point of order” in the traditional meeting 
> organization.)

Or the document editor who has to come up to the mic to answer the 
question. Or the more "exuberant" of us who run up to the mic to make 
our very important point on this topic. :-)

> I’m not sure we need all the above, but it would be a better mapping 
> of our meetings to the digital world, and it is exactly what makes web 
> meeting software situated software.
>
> Grüße, Carsten

Yes.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best