To hums: the default *appears* to be "piano" from headcount, if you do not interact therefore, graphing hum volume by headcount includes non-interactors and this "moves the dial" if not, then why is there no clear 'abstain' button. and how is the logic behind how the total sum and hum-weighting applied? APNIC designed a similar (in intent) system called "confer" to show dynamic state of the room. Its hard. Its hard to explain and get this stuff right. I did not find the hum indicated anything I felt I trusted. Experientally, "hearing" a hum and being told "here is the weighted sum of things you cannot see" is completely different. I would prefer to be told how many hummed. how many explicitly chose to say "no view" and how many did not participate, and I would prefer to be told how the hum weighting occurs. not in an RFC: on the tool. all the time. On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 2:33 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Without singling out any particular comment, I think there are > at least two things have have gotten lost in the discussions and > suggestions. I assume that, in at least some cases, people > didn't know. > > First, I don't know whether this should have been made explicit > earlier or not, but this is not the first time the IETF has used > Meetecho. Many of us have been using it for remote > participation for years and a great deal of effort has gone into > making it work smoothly for IETF's way of working [1]. I assume > we are probably a little more critical than many of their > customers but assume "our" changes have become, possibly with > small variations, part of their main product offering. I > believe their other customers have including many all remote, or > all remote other than a very small number of people in a central > location, setups, so the assumption in some messages that > Meetecho has never been used before in an all-remote situation > (or very close to it) is probably incorrect. I don't know if > the latter is accurate but, if it is important, I think we > should ask rather than jumping to conclusions. > > Second, many changes have occurred, at least to the user > interfaces, between our use for remote participants at IETF 106 > and this week. Personally, I like some of the changes but > believe others show signs of having been done in haste and with > too little thought and/or time for testing and review. I accept > Jay's assertion that those changes were not micromanaged by the > IETF leadership or staff, but note that Greg Wood indicated > during and after one of the test sessions that at least some of > those changes had been made at the behest of an IETF design > committee and that that the I-D and discussions of the hum > feature are quite explicit that the specifications came from the > IESG. > > It is probably helpful to remember something else I learned a > half-century ago about UI design. An experimental psychologist > colleague I worked with them was fond of staying that, when > people tried to evaluate a system, what they already knew was > almost always better (obviously, just because they are used to > it). For those who did not actively use Meetecho for remote > participation during IETF 106 and earlier and who have spent a > significant fraction of the last months on Zoom, WebEx, > GoToMeeting, and their competitors, and who did not attend the > test sessions, Meetecho probably feels very strange and is at a > significant disadvantage. I recommend giving it a chance and > doing so with an open mind. > > If, as appears to be the case from the timing of the > announcements, all of this was done on relatively short notice. > We should be impressed that it works and identifying issues and > making suggestions for improvements. If we want to make > suggestions about replacing all of it with COTS software, we > should consider how much effort has gone into trying to adapt > Meetecho for IETF needs and remember that, before Meetecho came > along, we tried to do remote participation with WebEx and, well, > it didn't work out very well. > > best, > john > > > > > [1] In the interest of full disclosure, I participated in a few > design sessions along with Alexa, Ray, and some Meetecho staff > (and maybe others; I don't remember). I think I got sucked in > because I started being intermittently involved in research in > user interface and usability issues in distributed office > teleconferencing systems in the early 1980s, studies that > involved real experimental psychologists and controlled > comparison of different approaches. And I may have been > compensated with some travel reimbursements or a registration > fee waiver or two -- not significant enough that I remember. >
