Forum Discussion
VIEW ALL PARTICIPANTS IN VIDEO MEETING
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
Tugsim , I appreciate the time you spent to craft your reply. I even gave a Like to it.
Tugsim wrote:
Fair enough. This particular thread only goes back to a few days ago. But I get your point about it being a prevalent conversation in other threads for quite some time. I wasn't aware of the other threads. This was the one that I happened across.
Tugsim wrote:
Falling out of favor and recognizing a platforms shortcomings as a huge annoyance is one thing. However, are you directly stating that the people that actually determine the platforms and standards used by companies (and have to justify said expenses) are going to just throw additional money and resources at rolling out a new platform for what is likely ("Hopefully!") a short-term annoyance just to satisfy the worker bees who believe they need to see each other to effectively communicate? I don't know for sure; Every business and their respective needs are different. There are areas where face to face comm is or can be very important or even critical. Those groups have legit beef. But those groups are probably already using WebEx/Zoom for quite some time. My reference is to business that haven't been using it and have been "happy enough" with Teams. For some of those businesses, this new situation may be enough to put them over the edge to switch in full. But it's my opinion that that's a minority of the global market. Where's it not absolutely critical for employees to see more than a rotation of four people, I think most large enterprises (Global, multi-billion $) are going to ride this out without expending additional time & resources for the worker bees who don't absolutely require it.
Tugsim wrote:
Am I OK with Average? Possibly.
Do I want Teams to be better? Sure, why not?
But I simply take a pragmatic approach to it. I look at any historical markers that I can find and then rationalize what, if anything, is going to potentially impact the future.
Ultimately, this is all just long-winded opinion. I have mine and I respect yours. 
Andre_LeBlanc I don't think you actually intended it the way I perceive it comes across, but statements like:
"a short-term annoyance just to satisfy the worker bees who believe they need to see each other to effectively communicate? ... I think most large enterprises (Global, multi-billion $) are going to ride this out without expending additional time & resources for the worker bees who don't absolutely require it."
appear to be very disrespectful to me.
The basic connotation is that human beings working in organisations are simply insects, to be given no more credence than an ordinary bee would be.
The further implication is that those "worker bees" don't really count. How they work, what they do, and how they are trying to manage their work - is of no real concern to "large enterprises (Global, multi-billion $)". The implication is that these large enterprises have much more important things to consider for their time and resources, rather than humans.
tonysutherland wrote:Andre_LeBlanc I don't think you actually intended it the way I perceive it comes across, but statements like:
"a short-term annoyance just to satisfy the worker bees who believe they need to see each other to effectively communicate? ... I think most large enterprises (Global, multi-billion $) are going to ride this out without expending additional time & resources for the worker bees who don't absolutely require it."
appear to be very disrespectful to me.
The basic connotation is that human beings working in organisations are simply insects, to be given no more credence than an ordinary bee would be.
The further implication is that those "worker bees" don't really count. How they work, what they do, and how they are trying to manage their work - is of no real concern to "large enterprises (Global, multi-billion $)". The implication is that these large enterprises have much more important things to consider for their time and resources, rather than humans.
tonysutherland You are correct in that your perception was not my intended message. I try to craft my posts carefully so there is little ambiguity in my intent. That being said, when we start using metaphors and clichés, intent can get muddied.
I am very sympathetic to 'worker bees'. If all a business had was "leaders", who does the actual work on the ground? EVERY person in the company I work for has an important role to produce our product. The points of my posts are these:
1) Not every portion of a business has a need to see everyone else on a conference call. I just got off a global conference call lead by our CIO. I'm fairly certain that very few people, if any, cared that we couldn't see everyone's face. It's not critical to what we do.
There are other companies where seeing everyone "face to face" is deemed critical. Teachers and Medical staff come to mind. And as I mentioned in my post, those people/industries are probably already using something other than Teams to facilitate that critical feature or need.
2) We were informed that a comprehensive cost analysis was done on implementing the infrastructure needed to bring Zoom into our environment. The cost analysis showed it would be in the $250K-$300K range. And that was based on conferencing utilization levels pre-virus.
The company I work for is considered "Manufacturing". Even as a multi-billion dollar company, the financial cost to implement Zoom was simply too high for whatever criteria they used. There aren't enough people or functional groups in my company that require or need to see everyone's face during a conference call. And because I work in IT, I'd know if a majority of our employees were clamoring for that functionality; they aren't. And if they were, I would expect them (or their respective leadership) to have a solid case to justify the expense. I would expect any successful company to find it reasonable that any request for a major capital expense would require it be justified and vetted.My opinion is that most large enterprises are going to reach the same conclusion: The need (different than a want) will not pass whatever criteria are required to undertake such an endeavor for what is hopefully a short-term hardship.
My words are not to be taken as a defense of Teams' functionality or lack thereof. Nor are my words intended to downplay the importance of 'worker bees'. My words are to help other people understand why the respective decision-makers in their organization may not be quick to jump to another platform that addresses some of Teams' shortcomings.
Lastly, because these forums are open to everyone of all walks of life and disciplines, I also want to note that I have intentionally not gone into great detail about what all is actually involved in rolling out a new platform in a global enterprise. Suffice to say, it's not as easy as "install this software and go have fun!".
I do appreciate civilized and professional conversations, even when there's disagreement. ✌- No defence, but I was much younger then.
As an example from the other direction, and telling a rather embarrassing story about myself, when I was a manager of a software development team, I once said in a team group meeting that "even a monkey could code these CRUD screens in a couple of days" (in response to failing deadlines etc etc).
How do you think that went down with the programmers working on the CRUD screens (and the rest of the team)?
Language is a powerful weapon.
Cuts all ways.
Tugsim OK, I understand.
Probably hit a bit of a trigger for me. Over the last 40-odd years in tech, I have too many times seen tech people talk about those in the "user" community (the "end-users") (itself a somewhat perjorative term, akin to likening people to drug users - which analogy itself is somewhat inflammatory but the terminology labels individuals as undifferentiated objects) as not really worthy of consideration, since they (the tech people) know so much better what the "users" want or should have. It is an underlying attitude that comes out in unsuspecting circumstances, a little like racism (there, I am going to your another hot button), usually due to un-awareness, yet still causes ongoing problems, with the result that delivery of effective results for people is compromised.
Sorry tonysutherland, think you're reading a bit much into that tbh. @Andre_LeBlanc and I have had a bit of to-and-fro on a couple of issues, and he's never been anything other than genteel. Suspect the worker bee metaphor was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
