Interestingly, a lot of the “pain points” highlighted here between in-person and zoom-based communication align with my experiences as a “neurodivergent” person, some examples:
(1) low audio quality making it difficult to understand the speaker/easily distracted by background noise, (2) lack of access to non-verbal communication channels like body language requiring dedicated brainpower to understand the speaker, (3) dysmorphia brought on by hyper awareness of one’s appearance, (4) lack of adherence to societal norms in conversation
I feel like remote work has leveled the playing field in a way that requires everyone to be explicit in their communication.
Re #1, many video conferencing apps have in-app captions and I really appreciate turning these on. Sometimes I can't understand the speaker and captions save me. Sometimes I space out and captions allow me to "rewind" conversations so I can answer an unexpected question.
Even if your video conferencing apps doesn't have captions, your OS might (Mac does, for example). Not as good as one in the conferencing software (which can label speakers), but it's better than nothing.
This feature also helps if you join a meeting and don't have your audio set up right.
In my experience, these captions only work for native speakers (of a language that happens to be supported) with "standard" accents. With other accents and/or non-native speakers, they break down pretty badly. Combine that with some amount of bilingual dialog and some technical terms and internal tech names, and it can get quite mystifying.
A couple jobs ago (pre-pandemic) I was at a remote company that put some effort into 1 & 2 that I've become big proponents of.
Allocate $300 per person to get everyone a podcaster mic and a pair of open backed headphones to plug into it as a monitor so you hear your own voice through your headphones. It removes the feeling that you need to speak loudly to be heard, which is a lot of the fatigue.
And if both parties are using this setup, it greatly reduces the "only one person can speak at a time" feeling, allowing you to use more natural vocal interactions without feeling like you're interrupting.
Together it makes a huge difference. I have audio processing and sensory problems and used to be so drained after a 40 minute zoom meeting. With this setup I can spend 4 hours a day pair programming and be appropriately tired but not exhausted.
Your 3-4 and large meetings with executives screaming into their laptops from coworking spaces I have no solutions for however.
I optimized for this style setup about a year into the pandemic, but using a Beyerdynamic MX300 wired gaming headset. The headset is closed-back, so to get voice feedback ("sidetone") I use an inexpensive Behringer XENYX USB302 mixer. It allows for adjusting the mic/audio mix going to my headphones, and also is a USB audio interface.
This setup is as minimal as I was able to get it: no big booms on my desk to move around, microphones blocking my video, etc. Yeah, I look like a pilot on calls, but the audio quality is amazing. Also, the mic being close to me blocks background noise, and isolates it from my desk. Sometimes my colleagues with podcaster-style mics have issues with mechanical transmission from their desk setups, while I have none.
People often comment — even to this day — about my audio quality. I talk to people all day, being in sales, and it makes a huge difference in my presence and professionalism. Absolutely worth every penny I spent.
As a side note, I also use my iPhone as my webcam (continuity cam I think it's called) along with a couple Logitech lights on my monitor, and the overall quality of my digital presence often blows people away.
It surprises me how many people in sales, marketing and other external facing roles don't optimize their AV setup.
Honestly I'm sort of surprised that there isn't training about this given how much sales training people go through. Presentation is HUGE. A good mic, a proper camera, and even just minor consideration for lighting make anyone so much more credible, and pleasant to talk to.
> It surprises me how many people in sales, marketing and other external facing roles don't optimize their AV setup.
It's not that surprising, it's fairly technical and many don't want to deal with it (ask anyone if they know what XLR or phantom power is), another problem is there's so many different options that it often leads to choice paralysis and some people feel uncomfortable to ask for money to buy better equipment.
Myself and my team are all technical sales folks with engineering backgrounds, and we naturally optimize for this sort of thing — all of us have some form of “advanced” setup that’s been informed by each other’s investment.
On the other side, NONE of our account reps have anything remotely close. I can think of one or two times in the past few years when someone asked me about what tech I use. My company even has a home office budget benefit meant for exactly this sort of thing!
Unfortunately since it’s an active feature it requires power, meaning any wired headset will require a battery or other power source.
A wired headset plus my mixer gives me an opportunity to tinker and upgrade my setup as I wish, and is all USB powered to boot.
I have some rough plans to make a simple audio interface with built in sidetone for use as a portable setup, but haven’t had the time to turn it into a real product. Someday!
>Allocate $300 per person to get everyone a podcaster mic and a pair of open backed headphones to plug into it as a monitor
How's your experience with this regarding soundproofing the room. Is normal noise filtering fine? I assume you have the mic on a boom with a pop filter.
> And if both parties are using this setup, it greatly reduces the "only one person can speak at a time" feeling, allowing you to use more natural vocal interactions without feeling like you're interrupting.
How does it work? Asking, because I always have this issue in 3+ person calls, where I'm frequently starting to talk just about when someone else does, ending up in those awkward "oh sorry you go please" moments. That makes me prefer to not say anything at all unless explicitly talked to.
I always assumed that my issue is that I'm just a slow-thinking dumbass who can't get the cues in time (which is true, because it happens in face-to-face in-person conversations as well, just less frequently), but maybe it's a technical issue contributing to it?
That's a latency issue, and there's no real fix for that.
The parent commenter, I believe, is talking about the problem where people use speakers and active noise cancellation, which makes it impractical to speak and be heard at the same time; the noise cancellation will ruin the speaker-user's mic audio while it has to cancel out another speaker. Headphones, worn by all parties, resolves this issue.
I might be wrong on some of this because I'm not that knowledgeable about the mechanics of it.
But I think video conferencing software is built around the assumption that people are using their speakers and so the output is also picked up by the mic. So some of it is increased latency caused by filtering that out. And then it keeps people basically muted until it determines they're trying to speak, and there's a delay with it toggling.
If you're using a mic and headphones at all though, there are settings that cut a lot of that out. They're usually kind of inscrutable like in zoom IIRC it's called "audio for musicians" or something like that. If both people are using headphones and have those settings on, it removes most of that "switching talker" latency.
As you add more people it's harder and harder to get everyone configured correctly, which is why having company buy-in and policy is important. Sheer network latency comes into play too, but most people working from home probably have acceptable connections.
All headset mics have the great advantage of minimizing the influence of room acoustics. Speech is easiest to understand without reverb. Putting the microphone close to your mouth is cheaper than room treatment.
The benefit of a headset is not solely the improved microphone, it's also that the headphones mean your microphone is only picking up your speech, and not your meeting's output audio.
If you are using both your laptop's microphone and speakers, then Teams/Zoom has to decide whether to play audio to you, or pick up audio from you. If you're talking at the same time as someone else, the audio quality for everyone in the meeting suffers.
Modern systems don't work in a half-duplex mode like this.
All laptop speaker/mic combos use AEC[1], where they can both playout and pickup at the same time. There is actually 2 layers of this in many systems, one provided by your device, and a 2nd layer provided in software by Zoom/Teams/Meet etc.
What can happen is that the meeting audio is a mixture of the top-N loudest participants. N+1 people talking will conflict badly.
Frankly, I hate apple audio products. Apple has a veneer of “industry leader” which makes people think they’re the best they can get, so they don’t look for alternatives. But oh my god apple mics are my bane on a day of calls. They’re “acceptable” in that, yes, can understand you. But their grating low quality is just uncomfortable. Like, I fully expect apple to rope out an AI model that reconstitutes people’s voice to sound normal just so they can keep trying to convince people they don’t need a headset or a boom mic.
Agreed. I've been using them for the better part of a decade (and full time since 2020) and I've listened to recordings of myself - sounds absolutely acceptable, and better than a bunch of USB mics I've tried.
I personally use a single over the ear [headphone with directional] mic because I want to hear everything around me normally (and myself). They are super cheap, and for jitsi/zoom/teams I don't normally need directional sound. It's also easier on my ears than earbuds. Esp if someone is too loud. I just tip it back a bit.
I’ve done a deep dive into this and have a setup I’m fairly happy with. It doesn’t sound as good as a “podcast” mic, but it’s also not obnoxious and in your face. While sounding worlds better than apple or gaming headsets. I detail in this thread:
It’s a wired headset with a condenser mic I feed into a daw with real-time compressor and eq. No software required or processing done on the computer. The only thing I’m missing is a wireless headset with audio in and out that can be routed to the DAW. Wireless headsets connect to the computer via usb which is a shame. All of my friends use steelseries and it sucks because I constantly have to ride their volume levels because the boom arm moves out the ideal position and they don’t have a leveler to do deal with it.
I know it's not exactly the point, but would you mind sharing what specific mic and headphones you went with for this? It can help to get a sense of what to look for to create a similar setup.
Yeti blue mic and phillips fidelio headphones. This was just the "standard package" that company recommended for new hires and we were given a one time setup stipend for what they cost at the time. I didn't shop around and haven't changed anything since, there may be better options now.
I have the mic on an arm to cut down on bumps and typing transmitting through the desk, but I find it doesn't have to be right in my face. I have it above the monitor, out of view of the camera. YMMV depending on room echo, my walls are bookshelves which is pretty good as treatment.
This is tricky to do correctly if you don't want to look like one of three things:
1. Podcast bro / Twitch streamer (giant mic inches from face)
2. Gamer (headphones with or without a headset mic)
3. Call center employee (open back mono headset with mic)
Turning off video is obviously the fastest fix to this. But assuming you don't want to do that...
You'll find a lot of people hate wearing headphones since it messes up their hairstyle or just looks distracting or some other sensory issue with having something clamped to your head. Earbuds work better for them; as long as the mic can't hear other speakers, the annoyance of half-duplex audio is eliminated.
The mic problem is harder if you don't want something obvious in frame. Lav mics work if you know how/where to attach one and to minimize clothing movement noise. Other options will require some level of room treatment if the mic isn't close to the speaker's mouth.
I suspect there are fashion/social signaling type reasons why streamers and podcasters put the mic visibly in frame. I found it wasn't difficult at all to get it out of the camera view with a minor but acceptable quality loss and no echo. My walls are mostly bookshelves which helps but is not exceptional.
I miss remote work when we didn't have to go on video all the time. Seeing myself/other people in a video chat is exhausting, and the non-verbal cues are often delayed so they lose meaning entirely. Just give me low latency voice again, please.
Our team culture defaults to video off for most recurring calls, it's more relaxing and less exhausting. When there's something really important to discuss, or an exec/client meeting we'll turn on video.
At my previous job during pandemic we usually communicated audio only. At my current job we most of the time use video as well. It is a big big improvement. Just a few days ago we had to have an audio-only call with a supplier, who said such was their policy. It was super annoying not being able to see them. It is much harder to get cues about for example how certain they are when saying something.
I have to agree with this, I find no video much more exhausting and difficult to follow.
I do have quite a few people that are non native English speakers that though not really difficult to understand, have great english and don't have very thick accents, does still up the difficulty slightly. Most of them also don't have the greatest audio setups (but not the worst, often plugin headsets with the dangly mics).
First thing to do in a conference is disabling yourselfs stream. It doesnt help in any way after the first 10 seconds. I cant understand why any manufactorer added those, except to fulfill narcisstic tendencies.
Interesting to me are the inverse issues my hard of hearing wife has with in-person work. She rarely gets anything out of meetings because the relative chaos and people speaking over each other means she can't hear any of it. No technology yet provides real-time transcription for reality. The politics of interpersonal relations makes everyone think you're stuck up, shy, unconfident, or all of these if you don't often speak up yourself. The common practice of looking over someone's shoulder for co-working doesn't work well when the other person relies upon reading your lips to understand you. All of the mythical serendipitous chance interactions that happen around a water cooler don't involve you if you can't hear anyone and don't take part in water cooler chat.
> No technology yet provides real-time transcription for reality.
A deaf dancer friend uses an app, I think from Google. We’re often in discussion/teaching circles in dance classes. Seems to work well.
“Real time” is relative though. Conversation latency matters in roughly the tens of milliseconds and it’s certainly not near that fast.
The group has to be attuned to having a turn for her to speak. She’ll pretty often come in at the same time as someone else, missing those subtle sounds of someone else about to talk. The emergent rule is “tie goes to her”.
This all works well in the mindful scene of Berkeley experimental dance workshops. Maybe she’d get steamrolled in a competitive finance office or something.
Can you please get that app's name? It sounds like something that would immensley help me. I'm hard of hearing and something like this would be amazing to have handy when I can't wear my hearing aids in a specific situation.
In my experience, it’s awful. When using my phone for real-world captions, I still rely on Otter.ai or even a Google Meet with myself as the only participant.
I find it to be like long-distance driving on major freeways/motorways.
The conflict is between on the one hand the need to stay alert, focused and in-the-moment, and a physical environment that lacks stimulating cues. Your body wants to zone out, but you can't, as you'll get no advance warning of cues to re-engage, so it's like fighting sleepiness constantly.
In-person meetings are so much less fatiguing, because you can spend about 60% of the time basically daydreaming and still contribute effectively - perhaps, more so - whenever needed.
Video calls are exhausting because without eye contact you can never tell who's looking at you at any given moment.
You have to maintain perfect composure because there's a camera pointed right at your face transmitting your minutest reactions to the rest of the group.
It's especially difficult when you're in a meeting that just won't end, or somebody keeps going back to a tiresome subject that's already been beaten to death. You can't even allow yourself a look down or a raised eyebrow without rudely signaling your boredom to everyone else on the call.
Oh boy do I have good news for you - nobody is looking at you if you're not currently talking, and nobody is going to notice or care if you look down or have the "minutest reaction".
People are primarily looking at the speaker, secondarily at themselves, third is probably checking slack/email/whatever and only in a deep 4th or 5th place is anyone paying any attention to the expression on other people's faces.
Realizing that nobody is paying that much attention and doesn't care hopefully can make the calls less stressful and exhausting for you.
Exactly, whenever I'm on a video meeting I'm just flinging myself around on my chair. I literally can't hold myself still. But it's even easier for me than an in person meeting since I get automatic captions, which make it so easy to keep track of the conversation.
Move your camera. I have mine above and to the right, so it is always on an oblique angle to my face. For me it relieves the tension of the close-up on your face as well as relieving the worry about looking at the speaker as the camera position wouldn't translate that anyways.
Not to mention that your meeting is recorded, so any misstep will be seen during the replay. When I have to go back watch an old meeting for details I cringe at some of my facial expressions.
> You can't even allow yourself a look down or a raised eyebrow without rudely signaling your boredom to everyone else on the call.
How is that any different than an in person meeting?
There is this assumed necessity that a video call is so much better for these meetings. I never enable the camera during meetings. Some is sharing their screen, and we simply discuss it. As a sibling comment points out, nobody looks at the thumbnails of the nonspeaking person. If the presenter is trying to look at the thumbnails of the viewers then they are probably not presenting very well. They are just distractions.
Maybe this is a generational thing, as I also never use FaceTime or whatever other video calling, and I'm a gray beard without the beard. Typically, the only ones I see doing that are those that are younger.
> How is that any different than an in person meeting?
Because you can see yourself. Whereas people IRL conduct themselves in ways that are unoptimized - because they can't see themselves, and since everybody is unoptimized it doesn't really matter.
On a video call, everybody is watching how they look, if you're the one who isn't paying attention then you're the odd one out.
Moreover the geometry of a group video call can be very unphysical if everybody can see everybody else including themselves.
> On a video call, everybody is watching how they look, if you're the one who isn't paying attention then you're the odd one out.
Not my experience in the slightest, and it is rather surprising to hear about others’ experiences from the comments in this thread.
While I don’t disagree that maybe other people do experience calls this way, I would ask: how can everyone simultaneously be watching themselves and also others for others to make a faux pax? It doesn’t seem possible.
that's my thoughts as well. who's actually paying attention to the meeting if everyone is so intently watching what all of the other viewers look like instead of the actual presentation.
> You can't even allow yourself a look down or a raised eyebrow without rudely signaling your boredom to everyone else on the call.
You realize that by hiding your boredom from everyone on the call, you are signaling to them that the discussion is interesting and thus you encourage them to continue that discussion.
I meant that hiding your boredom from everyone on the call is more professional than revealing you are bored, regardless of whether your camera is on or not.
This depends on company culture, but yes increasingly having your camera disabled is considered unprofessional unless everybody else has camera off as well (or if there are a dozen or more people in the meeting. In that case rules change a bit).
We could argue about whether it should be that way (I'm quite unsure tbh), but I would advise people who care about professionalism to default to on.
This is already a thing among some minoritised groups.
Specifically they feel a need to project a high standard of presentation at work, which is labour-intensive to accomplish, and - quite rightly - they don't want to feel forced to do the same thing to their home environment, or have relative strangers able to see into their homes.
Hide your own video from the meeting view and you're half way to some sort of Zoom sanity. No human can focus properly with a laggy mirror of themselves in their face.
> Video conferencing platforms have opted to deliver audio that arrives quickly but is low in quality. Platforms aim for a lag time of less than 150 milliseconds. Yet that is long enough to violate the no-overlap/no-gap convention to which speakers are accustomed.
EXACTLY. Latency is a killer. Even on cell phones.
Latency does not get enough attention. It's not as in-your-face as dropouts, but the levels of latency which we experience in modern communication channels are crazy bad.
And even if platforms are aiming for 150 ms, in practice the latency is often much higher than that.
Furthermore, a lot of users have substantial latency introduced by their setups - for example, earlier Bluetooth headphones like AirPods 1 add 300ms of latency (126ms for AirPods 2 Pro) https://stephencoyle.net/airpods-pro-2 . So even if you have a great network backbone and a great protocol, someone's crappy home setup might make it all for naught.
I've long held the opinion that many audio compression codecs have outlived their usefulness, and now simply introduce latency and reduce audio fidelity to preserve bandwidth that is no longer in short supply.
Every internet connection I've had over the past 10 years in the US has been fast enough to send and receive at least a dozen uncompressed CD-quality PCM streams simultaneously. On paper, my current fiber connection should be able to handle 1,400 of them. This insistence on audibly mangling the audio to keep it at ~96 kbps makes less and less sense every day -- especially considering how the audio is usually carrying all the important information in the call anyway!
(I find the same thing happens on streaming services too. 98% of the bits are for video, 2% for sound.)
While less compression is necessary than before, I'd argue that some basic, ultra-fast compression would be useful to allow for some basic bandwidth savings and error correction codes.
Honestly, my bluetooth headset probably adds almost as much latency as my fiber connection and wifi combined. That's another issue most people don't even consider: bluetooth is orders of magnitude slower than a wire, even in the best case scenarios.
You've also got to consider that the higher the bandwidth a stream is, the harder it is to deliver it with a low latency.
If every packet has a risk of being dropped or of arriving out of order then increasing either the size or the sheer quantity of those packets will also increase how often they get mishandled or buffered.
Plus you run into compatibility problems between different kinds of devices such as mobile users trying to connect over spotty 3G connections.
it's more likely that these companies would rather save a few pennies by introducing a new 64 kbps codec that reduces quality by only 10%, while offering the old codec's bitrate as a “fidelity mode” for premium+ subscribers.
Yes latency in practice is often higher than a second. Even in-person I must be careful not to barge in conversations and cutting off people, but latency makes it much worse. If you are in a larger group, one tends to not say anything to the group spontaneously because it always feels like cutting in.
I’ve been working remotely for nearly 20 years and will never return to a cubicle.
The secret to making online meetings bearable is simple: use audio only - just like talking on the phone, which people can do happily for hours. I don’t need to see you, and you don’t need to see me, but we can always share a screen if necessary.
At least in my experience doing meetings by video allows people to schedule back-to-back-to-back which gets tiring whether in person or not. In the days of having a walk or a drive between all meetings I think that also served as a good pause to reset. Limiting meeting load and doing a very brief walk or some garden chore between is just as good even if they're all video.
So, so many of the issues discussed in this thread are related to video. I've found that video is almost not really necessary. Unfortunately many people expect it these days, but if you can get some consensus that "we don't need to turn on cameras for this" then I find things go just as smoothly, if not moreso.
It's really a shame that people have made it almost weird to not have cameras on. Admittedly it can be nice to see the other participants in the meeting but I find it's only useful for the first 5 minutes, then it may as well go to audio. Saves on bandwidth too.
> Recall that compared to electronic devices, the human brain operates at ridiculously slow speeds of about 120 bits (approximately 15 bytes) per second. Listening to one person takes about 60 bits per second of brainpower, or half our available bandwidth.
How are they getting these numbers? Is it that a word is typically a few bytes worth of characters and we can process a couple words per second? Or are they really saying that all the information we perceive during a conversation can be reduced to less than 15 bytes per second? The former seems like a flawed comparison, and the latter seems ludicrous.
I was able to find this MIT technology review[1] that explains that one measure of a specific lexical task gives a processing rate of 60 bits per second. However, the author of the scientific paper in question complains about this summary:
> "I have a small scientific comment on your post. Although I think it represents my results very well, I find the opening sentence: “A new way to analyze human reaction times shows that the brain processes data no faster than 60 bits per second.” a bit misleading. I don’t think I have shown anything about the upper bounds of the processing speed, in principle the curve I show in Figure 4 of the
manuscript could extend far beyond this, but I have no information to make this extrapolation, so I would not claim (for the moment) any upper limit."
Britannica[2] has an explanation of historical estimates, which are in the same ballpark: "For example, a typical reading rate of 300 words per minute works out to about 5 words per second. Assuming an average of 5 characters per word and roughly 2 bits per character yields the aforementioned rate of 50 bits per second." However, 2 bits per character is a 4-letter alphabet, so already they have to be talking about some information theory version where the information density in an English word is much lower than what individual letters can encode (which makes sense, the bigram qz has zero occurences while th is frequent).
It goes on to explain that "in other words, the human body sends 11 million bits per second to the brain for processing, yet the conscious mind seems to be able to process only 50 bits per second" except that his is ludicrous on its face, at least by some measures, as the bps from the eyes alone in the table just below this paragraph is 10 million bps. Clearly, the "lexical task" of reading words involves processing much of that visual input -- even 0.1% would still be 10 kbps -- which is handwaved away in the lexical stream example to pretend that the brain receives a direct serial input stream of 2-bit characters.
Furthermore, it's easy to find other estimates of information processing that suggests the input from a single eye is more like 1.6 gigabits per second[3], which is 320x higher than the 10 megabit total given by britannica. The article explains that there's already compression before it hits the brain, though, as the optical nerve is limited to around 100 megabits per second.
The 120 bit upper limit seems to be an invention of psychologist Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (and purportedly independently by Bell Labs engineer Robert Lucky, though I can find no primary source that supports that claim), and is mentioned in that context in the wikipedia article for Flow[4].
the fatigue is not simply from using zoom, its about the privacy, and profiling violations, along with mandated usage, when its not practical to the task.
Meetings are also run inefficiently. My last manager was abysmal at setting agendas for meetings, and any time he ran a meeting, it would filled with status reports (mostly for projects I won’t ever be working on) and the occasional brainstorming session for ways that our team can leverage AI.
The way I handled it was to simply take over the meetings and run them myself, but that didn’t address the underlying problems (poor management skills and a lack of respect for staff time).
I have a strong inverse relationship between talking and fatigue in meetings. If I'm talking, it's generally because there's something for me to say, which means I'm engaged. I guess it does hit a limit where I've talked too much, but in my role that's pretty rare.
What gives me fatigue is the opposite. It's the meetings where I have nothing to say whatsoever. It's driven by the refusal, or inability, of organizers to plan or focus their meetings. I spend >95% of my meeting time trying to judge how little attention I'm allowed to pay to what's being discussed. Because I usually can't just leave and actually focus on work, but I also can't pay attention because the conversation is meaningless to me (think: discussing extremely specific problems of projects I've never heard of). There's no winning move, so "try to keep an ear open for my name or other keywords while I fidget, draw, or otherwise waste time" is unfortunately the optimal strategy in most meetings, even though it's extremely tiring. Can't imagine if I had to have my camera on.
Now that I've written all this out... I might just start leaving meetings and hope I don't get fired.
If you have nothing to contribute to the meeting, and nothing you need to hear from the meeting, just don't go. Unless you're working for one of those companies who care about meeting attendance from uninvolved people (which companies are these so I can avoid them?), then nobody is going to notice or care that you're not there.
I'm double- and triple-booked most time slots of most days, so I'm constantly skipping meetings, and it's just not a big deal. Even when I'm not double-booked, I am ruthless about what meetings I agree to attend. If there is nothing for me to say or hear, I just decline the meeting and get actual work done. In 25 years of working, Lumbergh has never even once stopped by my desk to say, "Yeaaaaaah, so, Peter, I notice you haven't been coming to meetings..."
#1 reason for meetings is insecure managers who have massive anxiety if they don't see "butts in seats" (or the wfm equivalent). These people are the downfall of any organization and it normally starts at the top: CEO/founder.
I broadly agree with the premise, but this section seems fishy:
>"Recall that compared to electronic devices, the human brain operates at ridiculously slow speeds of about 120 bits (approximately 15 bytes) per second. Listening to one person takes about 60 bits per second of brainpower, or half our available bandwidth."
Source? I was under the impression that the brain's processing is a lot more complicated than that and you couldn't reduce it to something so simple as 'bits per second'. Plus, during the average conversation, there must be enormous sums of data being processed - like the author mentions. Body language, tone of voice, social concerns, smell, sight, etc. There's no way that's a mere '60 bits' per second.
I think 15 bytes/sec refers to our ability to parse and process text, or spoken words "as if they were text" (i.e. ignoring emphasis, intonation and so on).
The fact that the Teams interface changes now and then, does not help. I had a few times messages from other chats while being in a video meeting. Accidentally logging out of the meeting is just a click away.
That said, people complain a lot about Microsoft's software but the whole integration of Teams with the rest of the 365 suite (collaboration tools etc) still is superior to anything else I've used.
Not directly on point, but I've gotten pretty ruthless about protecting myself from some pretty serious zoom (or teams, in our case) abuse. I was in a meeting 3 days ago and the person leading it said "Ok everybody, let's hop on camera so we can see all your shining faces!" More harmless than it reads written down like this.
My response was, verbally to the whole group, "Not for me. I've been through two hurricanes in two weeks and haven't had power in 5 days, so I'm going to skip the camera. Thanks!" I'll talk all day long, but nobody has any claim to my face or to making me perform. Until the pandemic we lived in a world where vast amounts of business happened on the phone, and while I tend to think video-based tools have presented HUGE opportunities to improve collaboration across diverse geographies, they've also created opportunities for abuse from people who want petty control, the first of which is ensuring they can call you out for looking out the window, looking at your phone, etc. Pound sand.
I'm a bit miffed that Zoom "outs" you as someone with a webcam. If you have a camera, it shows up as such in the participants list. All of my desktop webcams are virtual, but Zoom couldn't know that. It gives this false notion that I'm rudely keeping my cam off, when really I'm just preventing people from seeing a static OBS virtual camera screen.
On the flip side, if you want to be sneaky, you could probably remove/disable all of your cameras in software, which then telegraphs to everyone that you don't have a camera at all, even if you do.
> nobody has any claim to my face or making me perform.
Sure, but employers also have a right to make cameras be required (saying nothing of the wisdom of such a policy). Most people have a huge amount of requirements to “perform” in their work in various ways.
You can still enable remote work while putting guard rails around the need for video conferencing due to the cognitive load and emotional drain it clearly causes.
> My experience is that the people who love video is highly correlated with people who love useless meetings.
Strong agree. If you want your video on, I am cool with that. If you want it off, also cool. If you're not present, I'm going to know either way, but I want you to be comfortable while we work together. I care about the output and outcomes, not the control. n=1, ymmv, etc.
As a big advocate of remote work, over the years I'm coming to agree with this less and less. Done well, remote work is great. Done poorly, it's killing me. It often saps me of energy even more than office work did somehow.
On days at the office I get less done in terms of 'amount of work' but it feels more satisfying than remote, because it gives the feeling of better understanding situations and being able to do the right thing at the right moment.
Work relationships are very transactional and often self-serving, and you use the methods that get the best results.
I'm in consulting and the guys who are willing to be on camera have way more success with their clients than the guys who aren't. I learned to 'do conference calls' when I was younger and playing WoW with my guildies so I scoffed at it, but seeing really is believing. You are more likely to land a sale, get fewer objections to your project roadmap, your clients are more engaged with what you say... just everything is slightly better.
Decisions should be made in writing, so everyone gets some peace and quiet to deliberate, and we don't change our minds because nobody remembers what the outcome was (sounds crazy but I have seen this happen).
If you know them really well, voice is more than enough.
Video gets more info about how certain, cooperative, serious, how well listening etc people on the other side are. Also the relationship (boss/right hand etc) between speaker and non speaker on the other side gets more obvious.
Unless you're engaged in a high-stakes commercial negotiation, for example. The sales people in those are always on camera. The lawyers are routinely off. Part of that is a long, looooong history of negotiation via conference call, while part is wanting to be able to roll our eyes at the other team's posturing without being caught.
Some people _really_ need in person interaction, the problem is their requested accommodation is that the rest of us should have to be in that environment as well. You go into the office then, be there with people who want to be there, don't keep trying to force the rest of us to be in that environment.
What are really actually exhausting are meetings that shouldn't have happened, and people trying to force everybody to be on camera. My solution to unnecessary meetings I'm not willing to complain about is doing the dishes, folding the laundry, or otherwise paying only the required attention while otherwise occupying myself.
Regardless of the “politicizing” of WFH vs. RTO mandates, I think the internet sphere of people that grew up on being able to communicate and absorb a tremendous amount of information through text mediums like BBS, IRC and the messaging platforms of old have a lot of lessons and wisdom to share here, but it will be a hard uphill climb to sell a proper semiasynchronous text-based communication pattern to people.
I bring this up because it’s the elephant in the room that nearly every open source team out there inherently knows, but that people in general do not want to discuss because it is to the greater population an alien subject matter. My own bias of course is I often do not want to watch videos or listen to podcasts. They are slow, give me a transcript and let me run through it in my own way to process the information in a non-linear/chronological format.
I’ve heard over many years now a kind of defeated attitude about it. Sometimes it’s things like “I can’t read emotions through text” to which I would honestly ask if the person ever read a novel and can say that with a straight face, but some of it is to do with people being comfortable with a particular medium and, maybe, being unwilling to adapt. Regardless, the internet in and of itself has had a tremendous impact which will far outweigh any particular (maybe flimsy) stance on peoples preferences when applied to market conditions/expectations. Companies that adopt the nature, constraints and perks of the internet will inherently do better than those that don’t.
I couldn't agree more. Having grown up on IRC, forums, and eventually voice chat, I have no problem with "forging meaningful relationships" while working together in a text-based online world.
That said, I think it's a challenge for people who didn't exist in that space from a young age and figure out the patterns that make it manageable.
The sad thing is that these are probably easy things to learn, but there's no real movement to try and teach them. Instead, we try to replace our amazing battle-tested text-based tools with crappy multimedia substitutes.
It's definitely good to jump on a call sometimes, but I'd much rather have an in-depth technical discussion via writing. History is full of brilliant written correspondence between legendary figures in art, science, engineering, and business—but somehow we've decided that letters are not good enough for us.
The exception that proves the rule is Amazon, who apparently require written content to be submitted and read prior to in-person meetings in order to improve the discussion.
Your mention of novels and emotion is a false equivalence because novels are richly authored, edited and long form.
We have an entire generation of people who grew up on short form text as their primary way to communicate electronically. In many cases they won’t even bother to read even a couple of paragraphs.
In a work setting, all the shorthand slang and emoji/meme based communication is unprofessional and in my experience many people actively remove emotion from their slack messages. We strive to be neutral and objective because slack messages are monitored and forever.
As much as I hate to say it, I am not completely opposed to some form of limited RTO because Zoom and Slack simply are not enough to get context in many environments, even if you are added to every thread and meeting.
> Your mention of novels and emotion is a false equivalence because novels are richly authored, edited and long form.
It is not a false equivalence but rather a statement that there isn’t anything inherent about text that makes it devoid of emotional quality.
For people who aren’t reading between the lines: we need to get better at writing. My over all point is, in large part, about that. That the denizens of internet who have been around for decades already possess this skill because they have, I would hope, successfully applied it and shipped (in my example) open source software as a distributed text based communication team.
Most people I work with don't have those skilled writing that comes with open source involvement. Things like Release notes, releasing and versioning are often handled in a very sloppy way. They throw over some software or hardware and then they make some calls about how it is supposed to be used, forgetting to communicate all the caveats... Yeah you first need to set that jumper, wait 5 seconds and start the app... kind of communication.
I'd argue that effective written communication is a skill that can be learned and taught, and a best practice that can be enforced, rather than an innate property of a given human being.
If you can write code, you can create documents that include all the necessary details for a handover—without needing to be a brilliant writer—as long as you're aware that you're required to do so.
So is verbal communication, whether poetry readings, speeches, presentations, or even just skilled conversation.
The problem is that if an employee's job involves giving presentations, they'll likely be explicitly trained on it and given additional tips of they're struggling. Most offices haven't established a training process for written communications - even emails, guidance is often "Do it right. No, not like that, right, like this."
Ironically, the worst offenders are often the most "technical" people. It's like the old "comments bad, code should be self-documenting" BS. No, code is written for people, and software is written for people. Technology will always eventually bump up against its social and human context.
To be effective, you need to be skilled at both the code AND the written word, because these are all vehicles which are ultimately used to communicate with other human beings. Just like it's a myth that you can get into software in order to avoid dealing with those pesky human beings. Truly effective people understand their weak points and work on them; they don't pick a job that they think will enable them to run away from them and avoid them.
I wonder if there's also a "Zoom apathy" that many feel. The idea that it's harder to care about what's going on at work or what your company even does when you primarily interact with it online. Many people may not care about their company to start with, that's fair. But I wonder if there's an unspoken loss of engagement from interacting with something that suddenly feels less real and tangible.
Depends on your role. When it exists _only_ online, it can be difficult to get a grasp of what the company IS.
That may not be important if you're a developer with a tightly defined role, where "turn up and do as you're asked" is the order of the day. For a soft-skills role, Product Managers and so on, it can be harder.
Slack/Discord/etc can help there, but often you'll get some departments who are active there and some who don't participate. Water coolers work better because everyone drinks water!
I think maybe it's easier to realize you don't care when working apart from a company structure. I suspect most people don't care nearly as much about the company as the company would like. There's a constant push for "Corporate Family" and what not, which at large scales stops being a two way street and def becomes more indoctrination. Being separated def allows one to start viewing their relationship with work from a third party perspective, and often can show the unhealthy lines.
But of course companies that implement these indoctrination practices really don't want that, and will do whatever it takes to keep that control in place.
It's something I noticed at the start of the pandemic. Since we no longer had in-person social events or do simple things like get together for lunch as a team, work felt far more transactional to me. I had less connection to people I worked with since I wasn't in the same physical spaces and couldn't communicate in more human, non-verbal ways. The fact that you had to plan meetings or phone calls added even more to the transactional nature since now you could track when and how often you were communicating with others.
I also felt like I had to over-emote on Zoom to make sure people saw my reaction since I was just a tiny box on their screen.
On the whole, I think remote work made it clearer to employees that their relationship to their job was truly transactional, and I think companies recognize that and that's probably one reason why many want people back in the office.
I think there absolutely is. I haven't actually met a single coworker at my current job of over 3 years, since the nearest office is almost 500 miles from me, and it absolutely feels less "real" because of it. I do my job well enough, but it and my employer feel more like an abstract concept than anything else. I'm not one to care too much about a specific job in the first place, but I feel much less connected and engaged, and the job feels even less important to my life than when I was working retail/restaurants, even though I know that's objectively untrue. It doesn't help that I'm on a very small team and only really talk to a handful of people a few times a week.
How do you engage emotionally over Zoom? I prefer WFH actually, but every time I try anything else it feels really empty. It's fine if there is no alternative (e.g. talking to friends abroad), but I really can't imagine how to have a dance party over Zoom.
>"The cognitive load of online meetings eats up your capacity to think. Working from home merges a life of previously demarcated areas into one amorphous mass. "
Cut the fucking crap. I've been conducting all my business from home since 2000 - one person software development company. I spend way less time on Zoom meetings comparatively to when I was employee and in the office. Actually I do not use Zoom. Skype, sometimes Telegram work just fine for me. Normally I do not use video feed either.
>"Because video meetings, email, and texting feel qualitatively different from face-to-face talk, we weigh them as less meaningful."
Missing income from downtown real estate?
Anyways I do not need to spend 3 hours in commute, smell other's armpits and cooking to be productive.
I have to apologize as I did not express myself correctly. Lemme do it here: I have spent way more time on meetings when I was an employee working in the company offices. When I went on my own amount of my time dedicated to meetings was reduced very significantly disregarding of the media available. In the beginning it was phone calls mostly.
Interestingly, a lot of the “pain points” highlighted here between in-person and zoom-based communication align with my experiences as a “neurodivergent” person, some examples:
(1) low audio quality making it difficult to understand the speaker/easily distracted by background noise, (2) lack of access to non-verbal communication channels like body language requiring dedicated brainpower to understand the speaker, (3) dysmorphia brought on by hyper awareness of one’s appearance, (4) lack of adherence to societal norms in conversation
I feel like remote work has leveled the playing field in a way that requires everyone to be explicit in their communication.
Re #1, many video conferencing apps have in-app captions and I really appreciate turning these on. Sometimes I can't understand the speaker and captions save me. Sometimes I space out and captions allow me to "rewind" conversations so I can answer an unexpected question.
Even if your video conferencing apps doesn't have captions, your OS might (Mac does, for example). Not as good as one in the conferencing software (which can label speakers), but it's better than nothing.
This feature also helps if you join a meeting and don't have your audio set up right.
In my experience, these captions only work for native speakers (of a language that happens to be supported) with "standard" accents. With other accents and/or non-native speakers, they break down pretty badly. Combine that with some amount of bilingual dialog and some technical terms and internal tech names, and it can get quite mystifying.
Not so good if your flavour of neurodivergence is dyslexia, which often pairs with ADHD.
Valid point. But dyslexia doesn’t exclusively mean cant read well/quickly.
A couple jobs ago (pre-pandemic) I was at a remote company that put some effort into 1 & 2 that I've become big proponents of.
Allocate $300 per person to get everyone a podcaster mic and a pair of open backed headphones to plug into it as a monitor so you hear your own voice through your headphones. It removes the feeling that you need to speak loudly to be heard, which is a lot of the fatigue.
And if both parties are using this setup, it greatly reduces the "only one person can speak at a time" feeling, allowing you to use more natural vocal interactions without feeling like you're interrupting.
Together it makes a huge difference. I have audio processing and sensory problems and used to be so drained after a 40 minute zoom meeting. With this setup I can spend 4 hours a day pair programming and be appropriately tired but not exhausted.
Your 3-4 and large meetings with executives screaming into their laptops from coworking spaces I have no solutions for however.
I optimized for this style setup about a year into the pandemic, but using a Beyerdynamic MX300 wired gaming headset. The headset is closed-back, so to get voice feedback ("sidetone") I use an inexpensive Behringer XENYX USB302 mixer. It allows for adjusting the mic/audio mix going to my headphones, and also is a USB audio interface.
This setup is as minimal as I was able to get it: no big booms on my desk to move around, microphones blocking my video, etc. Yeah, I look like a pilot on calls, but the audio quality is amazing. Also, the mic being close to me blocks background noise, and isolates it from my desk. Sometimes my colleagues with podcaster-style mics have issues with mechanical transmission from their desk setups, while I have none.
People often comment — even to this day — about my audio quality. I talk to people all day, being in sales, and it makes a huge difference in my presence and professionalism. Absolutely worth every penny I spent.
As a side note, I also use my iPhone as my webcam (continuity cam I think it's called) along with a couple Logitech lights on my monitor, and the overall quality of my digital presence often blows people away.
It surprises me how many people in sales, marketing and other external facing roles don't optimize their AV setup.
Honestly I'm sort of surprised that there isn't training about this given how much sales training people go through. Presentation is HUGE. A good mic, a proper camera, and even just minor consideration for lighting make anyone so much more credible, and pleasant to talk to.
> It surprises me how many people in sales, marketing and other external facing roles don't optimize their AV setup.
It's not that surprising, it's fairly technical and many don't want to deal with it (ask anyone if they know what XLR or phantom power is), another problem is there's so many different options that it often leads to choice paralysis and some people feel uncomfortable to ask for money to buy better equipment.
There's alot in between XLR and airpod mic that can be used easily
It really does surprise me too.
Myself and my team are all technical sales folks with engineering backgrounds, and we naturally optimize for this sort of thing — all of us have some form of “advanced” setup that’s been informed by each other’s investment.
On the other side, NONE of our account reps have anything remotely close. I can think of one or two times in the past few years when someone asked me about what tech I use. My company even has a home office budget benefit meant for exactly this sort of thing!
A lot of gaming headsets have built-in sidetone. I found it a bit disconcerting at first, but it really does help you speak more naturally.
Unfortunately since it’s an active feature it requires power, meaning any wired headset will require a battery or other power source.
A wired headset plus my mixer gives me an opportunity to tinker and upgrade my setup as I wish, and is all USB powered to boot.
I have some rough plans to make a simple audio interface with built in sidetone for use as a portable setup, but haven’t had the time to turn it into a real product. Someday!
>Allocate $300 per person to get everyone a podcaster mic and a pair of open backed headphones to plug into it as a monitor
How's your experience with this regarding soundproofing the room. Is normal noise filtering fine? I assume you have the mic on a boom with a pop filter.
> And if both parties are using this setup, it greatly reduces the "only one person can speak at a time" feeling, allowing you to use more natural vocal interactions without feeling like you're interrupting.
How does it work? Asking, because I always have this issue in 3+ person calls, where I'm frequently starting to talk just about when someone else does, ending up in those awkward "oh sorry you go please" moments. That makes me prefer to not say anything at all unless explicitly talked to.
I always assumed that my issue is that I'm just a slow-thinking dumbass who can't get the cues in time (which is true, because it happens in face-to-face in-person conversations as well, just less frequently), but maybe it's a technical issue contributing to it?
That's a latency issue, and there's no real fix for that.
The parent commenter, I believe, is talking about the problem where people use speakers and active noise cancellation, which makes it impractical to speak and be heard at the same time; the noise cancellation will ruin the speaker-user's mic audio while it has to cancel out another speaker. Headphones, worn by all parties, resolves this issue.
I might be wrong on some of this because I'm not that knowledgeable about the mechanics of it.
But I think video conferencing software is built around the assumption that people are using their speakers and so the output is also picked up by the mic. So some of it is increased latency caused by filtering that out. And then it keeps people basically muted until it determines they're trying to speak, and there's a delay with it toggling.
If you're using a mic and headphones at all though, there are settings that cut a lot of that out. They're usually kind of inscrutable like in zoom IIRC it's called "audio for musicians" or something like that. If both people are using headphones and have those settings on, it removes most of that "switching talker" latency.
As you add more people it's harder and harder to get everyone configured correctly, which is why having company buy-in and policy is important. Sheer network latency comes into play too, but most people working from home probably have acceptable connections.
Absolutely. I hoped that the pandemic made everyone realize that laptop mics suck. Even a cheap $20 headset is better than nothing.
All headset mics have the great advantage of minimizing the influence of room acoustics. Speech is easiest to understand without reverb. Putting the microphone close to your mouth is cheaper than room treatment.
MacBook mics are more than acceptable.
The benefit of a headset is not solely the improved microphone, it's also that the headphones mean your microphone is only picking up your speech, and not your meeting's output audio.
If you are using both your laptop's microphone and speakers, then Teams/Zoom has to decide whether to play audio to you, or pick up audio from you. If you're talking at the same time as someone else, the audio quality for everyone in the meeting suffers.
Modern systems don't work in a half-duplex mode like this.
All laptop speaker/mic combos use AEC[1], where they can both playout and pickup at the same time. There is actually 2 layers of this in many systems, one provided by your device, and a 2nd layer provided in software by Zoom/Teams/Meet etc.
What can happen is that the meeting audio is a mixture of the top-N loudest participants. N+1 people talking will conflict badly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_suppression_and_cancellat...
Frankly, I hate apple audio products. Apple has a veneer of “industry leader” which makes people think they’re the best they can get, so they don’t look for alternatives. But oh my god apple mics are my bane on a day of calls. They’re “acceptable” in that, yes, can understand you. But their grating low quality is just uncomfortable. Like, I fully expect apple to rope out an AI model that reconstitutes people’s voice to sound normal just so they can keep trying to convince people they don’t need a headset or a boom mic.
I can very much tell when my boss is using his macbook mic vs headphone directional mic.
Agreed. I've been using them for the better part of a decade (and full time since 2020) and I've listened to recordings of myself - sounds absolutely acceptable, and better than a bunch of USB mics I've tried.
My MacBook Pro's Mic is as good as my entry-level dedicated microphone.
I personally use a single over the ear [headphone with directional] mic because I want to hear everything around me normally (and myself). They are super cheap, and for jitsi/zoom/teams I don't normally need directional sound. It's also easier on my ears than earbuds. Esp if someone is too loud. I just tip it back a bit.
*inserted [] for clarity
Over the ear mic?
Sorry should have been clearer. One ear headphone with directional mic.
I’ve done a deep dive into this and have a setup I’m fairly happy with. It doesn’t sound as good as a “podcast” mic, but it’s also not obnoxious and in your face. While sounding worlds better than apple or gaming headsets. I detail in this thread:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/w...
It’s a wired headset with a condenser mic I feed into a daw with real-time compressor and eq. No software required or processing done on the computer. The only thing I’m missing is a wireless headset with audio in and out that can be routed to the DAW. Wireless headsets connect to the computer via usb which is a shame. All of my friends use steelseries and it sucks because I constantly have to ride their volume levels because the boom arm moves out the ideal position and they don’t have a leveler to do deal with it.
I know it's not exactly the point, but would you mind sharing what specific mic and headphones you went with for this? It can help to get a sense of what to look for to create a similar setup.
Yeti blue mic and phillips fidelio headphones. This was just the "standard package" that company recommended for new hires and we were given a one time setup stipend for what they cost at the time. I didn't shop around and haven't changed anything since, there may be better options now.
I have the mic on an arm to cut down on bumps and typing transmitting through the desk, but I find it doesn't have to be right in my face. I have it above the monitor, out of view of the camera. YMMV depending on room echo, my walls are bookshelves which is pretty good as treatment.
This is tricky to do correctly if you don't want to look like one of three things:
1. Podcast bro / Twitch streamer (giant mic inches from face)
2. Gamer (headphones with or without a headset mic)
3. Call center employee (open back mono headset with mic)
Turning off video is obviously the fastest fix to this. But assuming you don't want to do that...
You'll find a lot of people hate wearing headphones since it messes up their hairstyle or just looks distracting or some other sensory issue with having something clamped to your head. Earbuds work better for them; as long as the mic can't hear other speakers, the annoyance of half-duplex audio is eliminated.
The mic problem is harder if you don't want something obvious in frame. Lav mics work if you know how/where to attach one and to minimize clothing movement noise. Other options will require some level of room treatment if the mic isn't close to the speaker's mouth.
I suspect there are fashion/social signaling type reasons why streamers and podcasters put the mic visibly in frame. I found it wasn't difficult at all to get it out of the camera view with a minor but acceptable quality loss and no echo. My walls are mostly bookshelves which helps but is not exceptional.
you probably have a condenser mic. dynamic mics should be 1-2 inches away from your audio source (think of a handheld mic)
I miss remote work when we didn't have to go on video all the time. Seeing myself/other people in a video chat is exhausting, and the non-verbal cues are often delayed so they lose meaning entirely. Just give me low latency voice again, please.
Our team culture defaults to video off for most recurring calls, it's more relaxing and less exhausting. When there's something really important to discuss, or an exec/client meeting we'll turn on video.
Same here. The focus is usually on a document. I find video pretty distracting.
At my previous job during pandemic we usually communicated audio only. At my current job we most of the time use video as well. It is a big big improvement. Just a few days ago we had to have an audio-only call with a supplier, who said such was their policy. It was super annoying not being able to see them. It is much harder to get cues about for example how certain they are when saying something.
I have to agree with this, I find no video much more exhausting and difficult to follow.
I do have quite a few people that are non native English speakers that though not really difficult to understand, have great english and don't have very thick accents, does still up the difficulty slightly. Most of them also don't have the greatest audio setups (but not the worst, often plugin headsets with the dangly mics).
I love the video, lack of it drives me nuts.
First thing to do in a conference is disabling yourselfs stream. It doesnt help in any way after the first 10 seconds. I cant understand why any manufactorer added those, except to fulfill narcisstic tendencies.
Interesting to me are the inverse issues my hard of hearing wife has with in-person work. She rarely gets anything out of meetings because the relative chaos and people speaking over each other means she can't hear any of it. No technology yet provides real-time transcription for reality. The politics of interpersonal relations makes everyone think you're stuck up, shy, unconfident, or all of these if you don't often speak up yourself. The common practice of looking over someone's shoulder for co-working doesn't work well when the other person relies upon reading your lips to understand you. All of the mythical serendipitous chance interactions that happen around a water cooler don't involve you if you can't hear anyone and don't take part in water cooler chat.
> No technology yet provides real-time transcription for reality.
A deaf dancer friend uses an app, I think from Google. We’re often in discussion/teaching circles in dance classes. Seems to work well.
“Real time” is relative though. Conversation latency matters in roughly the tens of milliseconds and it’s certainly not near that fast.
The group has to be attuned to having a turn for her to speak. She’ll pretty often come in at the same time as someone else, missing those subtle sounds of someone else about to talk. The emergent rule is “tie goes to her”.
This all works well in the mindful scene of Berkeley experimental dance workshops. Maybe she’d get steamrolled in a competitive finance office or something.
Can you please get that app's name? It sounds like something that would immensley help me. I'm hard of hearing and something like this would be amazing to have handy when I can't wear my hearing aids in a specific situation.
I would really appreciate this.
I can ask her when I see her, but that might be a while. I'm pretty sure it's Live Transcribe on Android. https://support.google.com/accessibility/android/answer/9158...
As the other commenter pointed out, iOS now has it. There are also apps in the app stores.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and... perhaps?
Apple has (currently US/Canada) live captions for conversations built in to iOS18
In my experience, it’s awful. When using my phone for real-world captions, I still rely on Otter.ai or even a Google Meet with myself as the only participant.
[dead]
I find it to be like long-distance driving on major freeways/motorways.
The conflict is between on the one hand the need to stay alert, focused and in-the-moment, and a physical environment that lacks stimulating cues. Your body wants to zone out, but you can't, as you'll get no advance warning of cues to re-engage, so it's like fighting sleepiness constantly.
In-person meetings are so much less fatiguing, because you can spend about 60% of the time basically daydreaming and still contribute effectively - perhaps, more so - whenever needed.
Video calls are exhausting because without eye contact you can never tell who's looking at you at any given moment.
You have to maintain perfect composure because there's a camera pointed right at your face transmitting your minutest reactions to the rest of the group.
It's especially difficult when you're in a meeting that just won't end, or somebody keeps going back to a tiresome subject that's already been beaten to death. You can't even allow yourself a look down or a raised eyebrow without rudely signaling your boredom to everyone else on the call.
Oh boy do I have good news for you - nobody is looking at you if you're not currently talking, and nobody is going to notice or care if you look down or have the "minutest reaction".
People are primarily looking at the speaker, secondarily at themselves, third is probably checking slack/email/whatever and only in a deep 4th or 5th place is anyone paying any attention to the expression on other people's faces.
Realizing that nobody is paying that much attention and doesn't care hopefully can make the calls less stressful and exhausting for you.
I think it's different order:
1. Primarily at oneself 2. Anything else on the computer 3. Speaker
Exactly, whenever I'm on a video meeting I'm just flinging myself around on my chair. I literally can't hold myself still. But it's even easier for me than an in person meeting since I get automatic captions, which make it so easy to keep track of the conversation.
I mute my voice when I don't want to talk, I should mute my picture too... wait isn't that what text chatroom conversations are?
Move your camera. I have mine above and to the right, so it is always on an oblique angle to my face. For me it relieves the tension of the close-up on your face as well as relieving the worry about looking at the speaker as the camera position wouldn't translate that anyways.
> You can't even allow yourself a look down or a raised eyebrow without rudely signaling your boredom to everyone else on the call.
Oh, one must. It is an important signalling mechanism. How else will people know that the horse they are beating is dead?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41854801
yeah, Eye Contact Correction is a thing now
Not to mention that your meeting is recorded, so any misstep will be seen during the replay. When I have to go back watch an old meeting for details I cringe at some of my facial expressions.
> You can't even allow yourself a look down or a raised eyebrow without rudely signaling your boredom to everyone else on the call.
How is that any different than an in person meeting?
There is this assumed necessity that a video call is so much better for these meetings. I never enable the camera during meetings. Some is sharing their screen, and we simply discuss it. As a sibling comment points out, nobody looks at the thumbnails of the nonspeaking person. If the presenter is trying to look at the thumbnails of the viewers then they are probably not presenting very well. They are just distractions.
Maybe this is a generational thing, as I also never use FaceTime or whatever other video calling, and I'm a gray beard without the beard. Typically, the only ones I see doing that are those that are younger.
> How is that any different than an in person meeting?
Because you can see yourself. Whereas people IRL conduct themselves in ways that are unoptimized - because they can't see themselves, and since everybody is unoptimized it doesn't really matter.
On a video call, everybody is watching how they look, if you're the one who isn't paying attention then you're the odd one out.
Moreover the geometry of a group video call can be very unphysical if everybody can see everybody else including themselves.
> On a video call, everybody is watching how they look, if you're the one who isn't paying attention then you're the odd one out.
Not my experience in the slightest, and it is rather surprising to hear about others’ experiences from the comments in this thread.
While I don’t disagree that maybe other people do experience calls this way, I would ask: how can everyone simultaneously be watching themselves and also others for others to make a faux pax? It doesn’t seem possible.
that's my thoughts as well. who's actually paying attention to the meeting if everyone is so intently watching what all of the other viewers look like instead of the actual presentation.
I mute video and audio unless I have something to say or am being directly addressed.
> You can't even allow yourself a look down or a raised eyebrow without rudely signaling your boredom to everyone else on the call.
You realize that by hiding your boredom from everyone on the call, you are signaling to them that the discussion is interesting and thus you encourage them to continue that discussion.
That’s obviously better than being seen as unprofessional.
Having your camera disabled is considered unprofessional? That's preposterous.
I meant that hiding your boredom from everyone on the call is more professional than revealing you are bored, regardless of whether your camera is on or not.
This depends on company culture, but yes increasingly having your camera disabled is considered unprofessional unless everybody else has camera off as well (or if there are a dozen or more people in the meeting. In that case rules change a bit).
We could argue about whether it should be that way (I'm quite unsure tbh), but I would advise people who care about professionalism to default to on.
Great way to summarize. Especially when most meetings are recorded.
We need to boycott cameras being on for meetings. It's a hard no for me. Thankfully hasn't been an issue at any of my jobs.
This is already a thing among some minoritised groups.
Specifically they feel a need to project a high standard of presentation at work, which is labour-intensive to accomplish, and - quite rightly - they don't want to feel forced to do the same thing to their home environment, or have relative strangers able to see into their homes.
Cameras on certainly shouldn't be mandatory.
I try to follow this rule, 3 or less - cameras can be on, 4 or more - turn cameras off, they are a distraction.
Word.
Hide your own video from the meeting view and you're half way to some sort of Zoom sanity. No human can focus properly with a laggy mirror of themselves in their face.
This is a huge improvement. Especially for 1-on-1 meetings. It really allows you to relax a bit.
I came here to say the same thing. It's a game-changer.
> Video conferencing platforms have opted to deliver audio that arrives quickly but is low in quality. Platforms aim for a lag time of less than 150 milliseconds. Yet that is long enough to violate the no-overlap/no-gap convention to which speakers are accustomed.
EXACTLY. Latency is a killer. Even on cell phones.
Latency does not get enough attention. It's not as in-your-face as dropouts, but the levels of latency which we experience in modern communication channels are crazy bad.
And even if platforms are aiming for 150 ms, in practice the latency is often much higher than that.
Furthermore, a lot of users have substantial latency introduced by their setups - for example, earlier Bluetooth headphones like AirPods 1 add 300ms of latency (126ms for AirPods 2 Pro) https://stephencoyle.net/airpods-pro-2 . So even if you have a great network backbone and a great protocol, someone's crappy home setup might make it all for naught.
I've long held the opinion that many audio compression codecs have outlived their usefulness, and now simply introduce latency and reduce audio fidelity to preserve bandwidth that is no longer in short supply.
Every internet connection I've had over the past 10 years in the US has been fast enough to send and receive at least a dozen uncompressed CD-quality PCM streams simultaneously. On paper, my current fiber connection should be able to handle 1,400 of them. This insistence on audibly mangling the audio to keep it at ~96 kbps makes less and less sense every day -- especially considering how the audio is usually carrying all the important information in the call anyway!
(I find the same thing happens on streaming services too. 98% of the bits are for video, 2% for sound.)
While less compression is necessary than before, I'd argue that some basic, ultra-fast compression would be useful to allow for some basic bandwidth savings and error correction codes.
Honestly, my bluetooth headset probably adds almost as much latency as my fiber connection and wifi combined. That's another issue most people don't even consider: bluetooth is orders of magnitude slower than a wire, even in the best case scenarios.
You've also got to consider that the higher the bandwidth a stream is, the harder it is to deliver it with a low latency.
If every packet has a risk of being dropped or of arriving out of order then increasing either the size or the sheer quantity of those packets will also increase how often they get mishandled or buffered.
Plus you run into compatibility problems between different kinds of devices such as mobile users trying to connect over spotty 3G connections.
it's more likely that these companies would rather save a few pennies by introducing a new 64 kbps codec that reduces quality by only 10%, while offering the old codec's bitrate as a “fidelity mode” for premium+ subscribers.
Yes latency in practice is often higher than a second. Even in-person I must be careful not to barge in conversations and cutting off people, but latency makes it much worse. If you are in a larger group, one tends to not say anything to the group spontaneously because it always feels like cutting in.
I’ve been working remotely for nearly 20 years and will never return to a cubicle.
The secret to making online meetings bearable is simple: use audio only - just like talking on the phone, which people can do happily for hours. I don’t need to see you, and you don’t need to see me, but we can always share a screen if necessary.
At least in my experience doing meetings by video allows people to schedule back-to-back-to-back which gets tiring whether in person or not. In the days of having a walk or a drive between all meetings I think that also served as a good pause to reset. Limiting meeting load and doing a very brief walk or some garden chore between is just as good even if they're all video.
So, so many of the issues discussed in this thread are related to video. I've found that video is almost not really necessary. Unfortunately many people expect it these days, but if you can get some consensus that "we don't need to turn on cameras for this" then I find things go just as smoothly, if not moreso.
It's really a shame that people have made it almost weird to not have cameras on. Admittedly it can be nice to see the other participants in the meeting but I find it's only useful for the first 5 minutes, then it may as well go to audio. Saves on bandwidth too.
> Recall that compared to electronic devices, the human brain operates at ridiculously slow speeds of about 120 bits (approximately 15 bytes) per second. Listening to one person takes about 60 bits per second of brainpower, or half our available bandwidth.
How are they getting these numbers? Is it that a word is typically a few bytes worth of characters and we can process a couple words per second? Or are they really saying that all the information we perceive during a conversation can be reduced to less than 15 bytes per second? The former seems like a flawed comparison, and the latter seems ludicrous.
I was able to find this MIT technology review[1] that explains that one measure of a specific lexical task gives a processing rate of 60 bits per second. However, the author of the scientific paper in question complains about this summary:
> "I have a small scientific comment on your post. Although I think it represents my results very well, I find the opening sentence: “A new way to analyze human reaction times shows that the brain processes data no faster than 60 bits per second.” a bit misleading. I don’t think I have shown anything about the upper bounds of the processing speed, in principle the curve I show in Figure 4 of the manuscript could extend far beyond this, but I have no information to make this extrapolation, so I would not claim (for the moment) any upper limit."
Britannica[2] has an explanation of historical estimates, which are in the same ballpark: "For example, a typical reading rate of 300 words per minute works out to about 5 words per second. Assuming an average of 5 characters per word and roughly 2 bits per character yields the aforementioned rate of 50 bits per second." However, 2 bits per character is a 4-letter alphabet, so already they have to be talking about some information theory version where the information density in an English word is much lower than what individual letters can encode (which makes sense, the bigram qz has zero occurences while th is frequent).
It goes on to explain that "in other words, the human body sends 11 million bits per second to the brain for processing, yet the conscious mind seems to be able to process only 50 bits per second" except that his is ludicrous on its face, at least by some measures, as the bps from the eyes alone in the table just below this paragraph is 10 million bps. Clearly, the "lexical task" of reading words involves processing much of that visual input -- even 0.1% would still be 10 kbps -- which is handwaved away in the lexical stream example to pretend that the brain receives a direct serial input stream of 2-bit characters.
Furthermore, it's easy to find other estimates of information processing that suggests the input from a single eye is more like 1.6 gigabits per second[3], which is 320x higher than the 10 megabit total given by britannica. The article explains that there's already compression before it hits the brain, though, as the optical nerve is limited to around 100 megabits per second.
The 120 bit upper limit seems to be an invention of psychologist Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (and purportedly independently by Bell Labs engineer Robert Lucky, though I can find no primary source that supports that claim), and is mentioned in that context in the wikipedia article for Flow[4].
1: https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/08/25/210267/new-measu...
2: https://www.britannica.com/science/information-theory/Physio...
3: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-information-enteri...
4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)#Mechanism
Shameless plug: I wrote a longer piece on the topic: https://leadership.garden/zoom-fatigue/
the fatigue is not simply from using zoom, its about the privacy, and profiling violations, along with mandated usage, when its not practical to the task.
It's from talking too much - many many companies plaster over their poor planning and decision-making by constantly meeting and talking.
They need to cut out some of the yapping by deciding, writing things down, and sharing this info.
Meetings are also run inefficiently. My last manager was abysmal at setting agendas for meetings, and any time he ran a meeting, it would filled with status reports (mostly for projects I won’t ever be working on) and the occasional brainstorming session for ways that our team can leverage AI.
The way I handled it was to simply take over the meetings and run them myself, but that didn’t address the underlying problems (poor management skills and a lack of respect for staff time).
I'm dealing with this same situation due to a new manager. It's exhausting.
That saying "people don't leave companies they leave managers" is about to prove itself true again...
I have a strong inverse relationship between talking and fatigue in meetings. If I'm talking, it's generally because there's something for me to say, which means I'm engaged. I guess it does hit a limit where I've talked too much, but in my role that's pretty rare.
What gives me fatigue is the opposite. It's the meetings where I have nothing to say whatsoever. It's driven by the refusal, or inability, of organizers to plan or focus their meetings. I spend >95% of my meeting time trying to judge how little attention I'm allowed to pay to what's being discussed. Because I usually can't just leave and actually focus on work, but I also can't pay attention because the conversation is meaningless to me (think: discussing extremely specific problems of projects I've never heard of). There's no winning move, so "try to keep an ear open for my name or other keywords while I fidget, draw, or otherwise waste time" is unfortunately the optimal strategy in most meetings, even though it's extremely tiring. Can't imagine if I had to have my camera on.
Now that I've written all this out... I might just start leaving meetings and hope I don't get fired.
If you have nothing to contribute to the meeting, and nothing you need to hear from the meeting, just don't go. Unless you're working for one of those companies who care about meeting attendance from uninvolved people (which companies are these so I can avoid them?), then nobody is going to notice or care that you're not there.
I'm double- and triple-booked most time slots of most days, so I'm constantly skipping meetings, and it's just not a big deal. Even when I'm not double-booked, I am ruthless about what meetings I agree to attend. If there is nothing for me to say or hear, I just decline the meeting and get actual work done. In 25 years of working, Lumbergh has never even once stopped by my desk to say, "Yeaaaaaah, so, Peter, I notice you haven't been coming to meetings..."
You are not alone. I'm in the same boat.
yes, i remember desk memos, and work orders. that would be a starting point.
i have concerns about what happened to it all. i have people that actually see hand writing, even typing, as too complicated, or takes too long.
#1 reason for meetings is insecure managers who have massive anxiety if they don't see "butts in seats" (or the wfm equivalent). These people are the downfall of any organization and it normally starts at the top: CEO/founder.
I broadly agree with the premise, but this section seems fishy:
>"Recall that compared to electronic devices, the human brain operates at ridiculously slow speeds of about 120 bits (approximately 15 bytes) per second. Listening to one person takes about 60 bits per second of brainpower, or half our available bandwidth."
Source? I was under the impression that the brain's processing is a lot more complicated than that and you couldn't reduce it to something so simple as 'bits per second'. Plus, during the average conversation, there must be enormous sums of data being processed - like the author mentions. Body language, tone of voice, social concerns, smell, sight, etc. There's no way that's a mere '60 bits' per second.
I think 15 bytes/sec refers to our ability to parse and process text, or spoken words "as if they were text" (i.e. ignoring emphasis, intonation and so on).
The number of folk in the meeting that cannot properly operate their terminal is, I'm sure, a big frustration driver.
Can't figure out mute, crappy angle, bad lighting, noisy background, where is screen share? Where is chat? How to use breakout?
The fact that the Teams interface changes now and then, does not help. I had a few times messages from other chats while being in a video meeting. Accidentally logging out of the meeting is just a click away.
That said, people complain a lot about Microsoft's software but the whole integration of Teams with the rest of the 365 suite (collaboration tools etc) still is superior to anything else I've used.
Not directly on point, but I've gotten pretty ruthless about protecting myself from some pretty serious zoom (or teams, in our case) abuse. I was in a meeting 3 days ago and the person leading it said "Ok everybody, let's hop on camera so we can see all your shining faces!" More harmless than it reads written down like this.
My response was, verbally to the whole group, "Not for me. I've been through two hurricanes in two weeks and haven't had power in 5 days, so I'm going to skip the camera. Thanks!" I'll talk all day long, but nobody has any claim to my face or to making me perform. Until the pandemic we lived in a world where vast amounts of business happened on the phone, and while I tend to think video-based tools have presented HUGE opportunities to improve collaboration across diverse geographies, they've also created opportunities for abuse from people who want petty control, the first of which is ensuring they can call you out for looking out the window, looking at your phone, etc. Pound sand.
I'm a bit miffed that Zoom "outs" you as someone with a webcam. If you have a camera, it shows up as such in the participants list. All of my desktop webcams are virtual, but Zoom couldn't know that. It gives this false notion that I'm rudely keeping my cam off, when really I'm just preventing people from seeing a static OBS virtual camera screen.
On the flip side, if you want to be sneaky, you could probably remove/disable all of your cameras in software, which then telegraphs to everyone that you don't have a camera at all, even if you do.
> nobody has any claim to my face or making me perform.
Sure, but employers also have a right to make cameras be required (saying nothing of the wisdom of such a policy). Most people have a huge amount of requirements to “perform” in their work in various ways.
As soon as I attend to a zoom call for some minutes, sleepiness attacks and I have really hard time trying to stay awake.
"Zoom fatigue" seems like a small price to pay for the ability to work remotely.
You can still enable remote work while putting guard rails around the need for video conferencing due to the cognitive load and emotional drain it clearly causes.
I think I have only been on camera 3 or 4 times since 2020.
The value has always been in the audio or what someone is sharing on their screen.
Video is mostly a distraction. If it is my meeting then video is going to be disabled for everyone.
My experience is that the people who love video is highly correlated with people who love useless meetings.
> My experience is that the people who love video is highly correlated with people who love useless meetings.
Strong agree. If you want your video on, I am cool with that. If you want it off, also cool. If you're not present, I'm going to know either way, but I want you to be comfortable while we work together. I care about the output and outcomes, not the control. n=1, ymmv, etc.
As a big advocate of remote work, over the years I'm coming to agree with this less and less. Done well, remote work is great. Done poorly, it's killing me. It often saps me of energy even more than office work did somehow.
Commuting seems like a small price to pay for the ability to have productive working sessions with my colleagues.
As someone that got rear ended on my way home from work and had my car totaled a few months ago, I disagree haha
On days at the office I get less done in terms of 'amount of work' but it feels more satisfying than remote, because it gives the feeling of better understanding situations and being able to do the right thing at the right moment.
Isnt this still an issue without remote work.
Im not sure I ever had a meeting with everyone in the same room.
I don’t understand why voice chat isn’t more popular at work. It’s the top choice for talking with friends and family (phone calls and VoIP).
Work relationships are very transactional and often self-serving, and you use the methods that get the best results.
I'm in consulting and the guys who are willing to be on camera have way more success with their clients than the guys who aren't. I learned to 'do conference calls' when I was younger and playing WoW with my guildies so I scoffed at it, but seeing really is believing. You are more likely to land a sale, get fewer objections to your project roadmap, your clients are more engaged with what you say... just everything is slightly better.
It's easier to read people with video. If you don't know someone that well, you can't pick up as many cues with just voice.
The point of meetings is to take decisions, not interrogate suspects.
Decisions should be made in writing, so everyone gets some peace and quiet to deliberate, and we don't change our minds because nobody remembers what the outcome was (sounds crazy but I have seen this happen).
If you know them really well, voice is more than enough.
Video gets more info about how certain, cooperative, serious, how well listening etc people on the other side are. Also the relationship (boss/right hand etc) between speaker and non speaker on the other side gets more obvious.
Unless you're engaged in a high-stakes commercial negotiation, for example. The sales people in those are always on camera. The lawyers are routinely off. Part of that is a long, looooong history of negotiation via conference call, while part is wanting to be able to roll our eyes at the other team's posturing without being caught.
Some people _really_ need in person interaction, the problem is their requested accommodation is that the rest of us should have to be in that environment as well. You go into the office then, be there with people who want to be there, don't keep trying to force the rest of us to be in that environment.
What are really actually exhausting are meetings that shouldn't have happened, and people trying to force everybody to be on camera. My solution to unnecessary meetings I'm not willing to complain about is doing the dishes, folding the laundry, or otherwise paying only the required attention while otherwise occupying myself.
Companies/teams/whatever should just decide if they’re in person or not. Trying to be both and neither isn’t going to work.
One of the biggest drains of zoom is showing the selfie view during the call.
It's a complete distraction and should be off by default.
Who holds a small mirror to their own face while speaking with someone in front of them?
This is old news... You can use the literature.. Take to any competent psychiatrist and have them write for you an ADA Accommodation letter.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8823563/
https://tmb.apaopen.org/pub/nonverbal-overload/release/2
https://news.stanford.edu/2021/02/23/four-causes-zoom-fatigu...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=zoom+fatigue+medical+re...
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/psychological-explorat...
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-90677-1_...
https://community.macmillanlearning.com/t5/bits-blog/beyond-...
https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/online...
Regardless of the “politicizing” of WFH vs. RTO mandates, I think the internet sphere of people that grew up on being able to communicate and absorb a tremendous amount of information through text mediums like BBS, IRC and the messaging platforms of old have a lot of lessons and wisdom to share here, but it will be a hard uphill climb to sell a proper semiasynchronous text-based communication pattern to people.
I bring this up because it’s the elephant in the room that nearly every open source team out there inherently knows, but that people in general do not want to discuss because it is to the greater population an alien subject matter. My own bias of course is I often do not want to watch videos or listen to podcasts. They are slow, give me a transcript and let me run through it in my own way to process the information in a non-linear/chronological format.
I’ve heard over many years now a kind of defeated attitude about it. Sometimes it’s things like “I can’t read emotions through text” to which I would honestly ask if the person ever read a novel and can say that with a straight face, but some of it is to do with people being comfortable with a particular medium and, maybe, being unwilling to adapt. Regardless, the internet in and of itself has had a tremendous impact which will far outweigh any particular (maybe flimsy) stance on peoples preferences when applied to market conditions/expectations. Companies that adopt the nature, constraints and perks of the internet will inherently do better than those that don’t.
I couldn't agree more. Having grown up on IRC, forums, and eventually voice chat, I have no problem with "forging meaningful relationships" while working together in a text-based online world.
That said, I think it's a challenge for people who didn't exist in that space from a young age and figure out the patterns that make it manageable.
The sad thing is that these are probably easy things to learn, but there's no real movement to try and teach them. Instead, we try to replace our amazing battle-tested text-based tools with crappy multimedia substitutes.
It's definitely good to jump on a call sometimes, but I'd much rather have an in-depth technical discussion via writing. History is full of brilliant written correspondence between legendary figures in art, science, engineering, and business—but somehow we've decided that letters are not good enough for us.
The exception that proves the rule is Amazon, who apparently require written content to be submitted and read prior to in-person meetings in order to improve the discussion.
Your mention of novels and emotion is a false equivalence because novels are richly authored, edited and long form.
We have an entire generation of people who grew up on short form text as their primary way to communicate electronically. In many cases they won’t even bother to read even a couple of paragraphs.
In a work setting, all the shorthand slang and emoji/meme based communication is unprofessional and in my experience many people actively remove emotion from their slack messages. We strive to be neutral and objective because slack messages are monitored and forever.
As much as I hate to say it, I am not completely opposed to some form of limited RTO because Zoom and Slack simply are not enough to get context in many environments, even if you are added to every thread and meeting.
>In a work setting, all the shorthand slang and emoji/meme based communication is unprofessional
Perhaps that's the problem? Texting pretty much killed phone calls, everybody has learned to communicate over text.
> Your mention of novels and emotion is a false equivalence because novels are richly authored, edited and long form.
It is not a false equivalence but rather a statement that there isn’t anything inherent about text that makes it devoid of emotional quality.
For people who aren’t reading between the lines: we need to get better at writing. My over all point is, in large part, about that. That the denizens of internet who have been around for decades already possess this skill because they have, I would hope, successfully applied it and shipped (in my example) open source software as a distributed text based communication team.
Most people I work with don't have those skilled writing that comes with open source involvement. Things like Release notes, releasing and versioning are often handled in a very sloppy way. They throw over some software or hardware and then they make some calls about how it is supposed to be used, forgetting to communicate all the caveats... Yeah you first need to set that jumper, wait 5 seconds and start the app... kind of communication.
I'd argue that effective written communication is a skill that can be learned and taught, and a best practice that can be enforced, rather than an innate property of a given human being.
If you can write code, you can create documents that include all the necessary details for a handover—without needing to be a brilliant writer—as long as you're aware that you're required to do so.
old fashioned systems really shine for functionality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleprinter
To be fair writing a novel is an art. A lot of people struggle with communicating emotions over text.
So is verbal communication, whether poetry readings, speeches, presentations, or even just skilled conversation.
The problem is that if an employee's job involves giving presentations, they'll likely be explicitly trained on it and given additional tips of they're struggling. Most offices haven't established a training process for written communications - even emails, guidance is often "Do it right. No, not like that, right, like this."
Ironically, the worst offenders are often the most "technical" people. It's like the old "comments bad, code should be self-documenting" BS. No, code is written for people, and software is written for people. Technology will always eventually bump up against its social and human context.
To be effective, you need to be skilled at both the code AND the written word, because these are all vehicles which are ultimately used to communicate with other human beings. Just like it's a myth that you can get into software in order to avoid dealing with those pesky human beings. Truly effective people understand their weak points and work on them; they don't pick a job that they think will enable them to run away from them and avoid them.
I wonder if there's also a "Zoom apathy" that many feel. The idea that it's harder to care about what's going on at work or what your company even does when you primarily interact with it online. Many people may not care about their company to start with, that's fair. But I wonder if there's an unspoken loss of engagement from interacting with something that suddenly feels less real and tangible.
Depends on your role. When it exists _only_ online, it can be difficult to get a grasp of what the company IS.
That may not be important if you're a developer with a tightly defined role, where "turn up and do as you're asked" is the order of the day. For a soft-skills role, Product Managers and so on, it can be harder.
Slack/Discord/etc can help there, but often you'll get some departments who are active there and some who don't participate. Water coolers work better because everyone drinks water!
I think maybe it's easier to realize you don't care when working apart from a company structure. I suspect most people don't care nearly as much about the company as the company would like. There's a constant push for "Corporate Family" and what not, which at large scales stops being a two way street and def becomes more indoctrination. Being separated def allows one to start viewing their relationship with work from a third party perspective, and often can show the unhealthy lines.
But of course companies that implement these indoctrination practices really don't want that, and will do whatever it takes to keep that control in place.
It's something I noticed at the start of the pandemic. Since we no longer had in-person social events or do simple things like get together for lunch as a team, work felt far more transactional to me. I had less connection to people I worked with since I wasn't in the same physical spaces and couldn't communicate in more human, non-verbal ways. The fact that you had to plan meetings or phone calls added even more to the transactional nature since now you could track when and how often you were communicating with others.
I also felt like I had to over-emote on Zoom to make sure people saw my reaction since I was just a tiny box on their screen.
On the whole, I think remote work made it clearer to employees that their relationship to their job was truly transactional, and I think companies recognize that and that's probably one reason why many want people back in the office.
I think there absolutely is. I haven't actually met a single coworker at my current job of over 3 years, since the nearest office is almost 500 miles from me, and it absolutely feels less "real" because of it. I do my job well enough, but it and my employer feel more like an abstract concept than anything else. I'm not one to care too much about a specific job in the first place, but I feel much less connected and engaged, and the job feels even less important to my life than when I was working retail/restaurants, even though I know that's objectively untrue. It doesn't help that I'm on a very small team and only really talk to a handful of people a few times a week.
What I’ve learned is this is entirely about how you show up on the call and what the group permission/culture context is.
I’ve done dance parties, group therapy, and family events over Zoom. They were emotional and built relationships.
I don’t think it’s a substitute for in person interactions, but “in digital” interactions can be far more meaningful if we are willing to risk it.
How do you engage emotionally over Zoom? I prefer WFH actually, but every time I try anything else it feels really empty. It's fine if there is no alternative (e.g. talking to friends abroad), but I really can't imagine how to have a dance party over Zoom.
i personally cant take it seriously, when someone tries to be professional, using adolescent methods like webcamming.
>"The cognitive load of online meetings eats up your capacity to think. Working from home merges a life of previously demarcated areas into one amorphous mass. "
Cut the fucking crap. I've been conducting all my business from home since 2000 - one person software development company. I spend way less time on Zoom meetings comparatively to when I was employee and in the office. Actually I do not use Zoom. Skype, sometimes Telegram work just fine for me. Normally I do not use video feed either.
>"Because video meetings, email, and texting feel qualitatively different from face-to-face talk, we weigh them as less meaningful."
Missing income from downtown real estate?
Anyways I do not need to spend 3 hours in commute, smell other's armpits and cooking to be productive.
> 2000
Did you mean 2020?
No exactly 2000, this was when I left a company where I was an employee and went as independent
So how do you spend way less time on zoom (which was released in 2013) than you spent on zoom prior to 2000?
I have to apologize as I did not express myself correctly. Lemme do it here: I have spent way more time on meetings when I was an employee working in the company offices. When I went on my own amount of my time dedicated to meetings was reduced very significantly disregarding of the media available. In the beginning it was phone calls mostly.
Reads like a fluff piece for RTO.