Forum Discussion
VIEW ALL PARTICIPANTS IN VIDEO MEETING
- Mar 30, 2020
Right, lots in this thread to unpack.
1. The 4 video view will work in the desktop app on Windows, Mac, Linux or the mobile app on Apple or Android. It is not possible in the browser. I don't believe this is likely to change in any useful time period.
2. The 9 video view is in development, and Microsoft have heard loud and clear from MVPs that it's important. As far as I know it won't be here during April.
3. The view you see will always be the students that talked most recently. If you keep your students muted and unmute to speak it shouldn't be confusing to work out who is speaking.
4. As the teacher you can select any of the students in your meeting to view their video by clicking on the ... next to their name in the list of attendees and selecting pin, once you have finished unpin to get back to active speakers.
4. Your school districts are probably wise to not permit the use of Zoom, they have a responsibility to not allow your student data to be accessed by third parties or several other risks. Look up zoom bombing if you think it'll be fine, or when zoom were sending data to Facebook without permission, or when hackers worked out how to access private meetings.
5. Teams has very good controls to allow you to keep order during a meeting, controlling who can speak, present etc. It's harder to achieve this in Zoom. Tips in my video attached.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKdlyf_KDCg
Andre_LeBlanc wrote:
If/When Microsoft releases the update to the 9-box, is it clear that it still won't satisfy most of the people in this thread. So why rush it? If they do rush the 9-box or something larger like a video feed for every Participant, and it doesn't work that well or worse, breaks existing functionality, nobody wins in that scenario.
Rushing it? Given that this thread's been going since 2016, and we had techs and devs suggesting that we'd be seeing content "very soon" almost a year ago, I don't think anyone's accusing MS of rushing anything. More that, after all this time, we were expecting to not be fobbed off with excuses, and were expecting some actual, tangible results.
Yes, Zoom and WebEx are established systems that handle the concurrent visibility of multiple users much better then Teams - but given how long apps like WebEx have been around, would it not have been possible, if not competitively advisable, for MS to mimic that functionality and enable Teams to be viewed as a viable video calling replacement for WebEx, rather than a poor man's fall-back? Or a Jack-of-all-trades and master of none?
You say you "doubt that many businesses or their respective IT departments are going to spend the time and money to roll out a completely new infrastructure to address what is hopefully a short-term annoyance as it relates to video conferencing"; I regret to inform you that, even with a team as small as my immediate unit of 10, let alone in departmental team meetings of over 120, Teams has fallen out of favour after 3 weeks of use. 3 weeks. And that's primarily due to this inability to see all users - not due to the current climate but because three of the team are based elsewhere, we WFH twice a week, staggered across various days etc. And that's common across the organisation. We have, potentially, in excess of 40,000 users likely to be needing to use video-conferencing facilities across every working week, and you're basically handing money to your competitors rather than working out a way of improving the functionality of your system and monetising it by (as they do) adding 'host accounts' as an upgrade to free accounts to include certain aspects of functionality.
How / why is this so hard to understand? You're essentially saying "We're OK with average", rather than taking Teams and turning it into an *incredible* "master-of-all-trades"...
Tugsim Pretty much agree with your comments, and not those seemingly defending Teams. As an IT Pro with little experience in Teams (but extensive experience in Office and plenty of other IT systems) trying to assist some people trying to start using Teams, I can attest that Teams is far from effective or efficacious. These people have used IT for many years, just not something like Teams. The number of barriers that are presented just to get simple aspects of group participation going seem never-ending (if not one thing, then another to be researched and then solved). The information provided by standard Microsoft channels seems woefully inadequate, and totally unsuitable for "ordinary" people to read.
The 4 video view limitation discussion appears to have been around for quite some time, and given that other tech organisations seem to have solved this problem long ago, it is incredulous that more excuses are rolled out by Microsoft with respect to this area.
And the Swiss Army Knife vs Scalpel analogy is misleading, I think. I would prefer that the analogy is a Swiss Army Knife vs a Cutlery Set (even a picnic cutlery set, if one insists on portability). Of course one can try to eat one's meal with a swiss army knife, but it is difficult and annoying, to say the least. So much so that very few people do so on a regular basis. A swiss army knife is there for a reason - provide a portable multi-purpose tool that will just manage when nothing else is available (and needs to be small and portable). In all other circumstances, one would choose the right set of tools with the right functionality for the job-at-hand. So, one would always use a proper cutlery set - with a proper knife (say, the collaboration tool) combined with the proper fork (say the office tool) and the proper spoon (say the database and apps tool).
Or, if one doesn't like the cutlery analogy, then use a simple tradesman or home toolbox. If you need a screwdriver, pull out the screwdriver with a proper handle - much easier than trying to use the weeny screwdriver on a swiss army knife. Ditto for scissors. Don't get me started if you need a hammer!
Suggesting that Teams is the Swiss Army Knife of IT products is actually a terrible indictment of the product. It means that it is barely functional for a whole variety of tasks, and should only be used in circumstances where the proper tools that one needs are not available.
Unfortunately, the whole experience seems to be another "me too" attempt by Microsoft. Witness Internet Explorer. Completely overwhelmed by way better browsers available from other suppliers, but forced corporate users, beholden to the dictates of corporate IT departments fixated on the Microsoft only product set, to use a substandard browser for a substandard user experience. Until Microsoft finally realised (after so many corporate IT departments finally allowed use of Chrome, or Firefox because they could no longer hold out) that they had to do so much better - that they actually had to give their browser a new name so it would not be associated with the terrible IE name. One hopes that this will not be the experience with Teams, but given that there is some serious competition out there and people are not afraid to use those products, Microsoft may not have much choice but to lift their game with respect to Teams (and other such associated products).
- TugsimApr 07, 2020Iron Contributor"Of course one can try to eat one's meal with a swiss army knife, but it is difficult and annoying, to say the least."
This amused me no end - will be using this analogy in my next IT review.- tonysutherlandApr 07, 2020Copper Contributor
Tugsim You're welcome. And keep up the good fight.