The first idea that comes to mind when thinking about the videoconference last week is awareness. A videoconference is the ultimate example of awareness since it combines both audio and visual cues in order for users to relay information. As the IOCOM salesman pointed out, the a software-based videconference is very often more relaxed than face-to-face communication, and this is not always a good thing.
In face-to-face communication, users are more aware of other people, as illustrated by Gutwin repeatedly in his article, and they tend to conform to social norms. There is a sense of politeness that comes from being acutely aware of the people around you that is not present in videoconferencing because of the proximity, or lack thereof. Even though videoconferences have comporable awareness to real life, especially with IOCOM document sharing and whiteboard features, people treat them differently than face-to-face communication, increasing the inefficiency.
For example, the IOCOM salesman said that users often eat while videoconferencing, something that users would not typically do when in a face-to-face meeting, unless it were over a meal. This is because users do not think that others are aware of their actions, even though annoying sounds are magnified in the microphone. Videoconferencing services try to give users control over how much information they are receiving, or how aware they are, by allowing them to mute both audio and video, and thus decrease their awareness. Ironically, this reduction in awareness, often claimed to be the key to successful groupwork by Gutwin, may actually increase productivity.
Finally, large group videoconferences suffered many of the same awareness problems that even regular large groups have. When speaking with the Olsens or Eric, it was not immediately apparent which student was speaking since our faces were so small. This led to confusion when each student spoke, and actually made the audio cues far more important to awareness than the visual cues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I also wrote about awareness with respect to the video conference in my blog this week. I concentrated more on the ability to know what other contributors were doing at a given time, but I think it was very interesting to hear it looked at in terms of social norms. When thinking about how people might eat in front of a camera without really thinking about the implications of their actions it brings to mind privacy ideas as well. Perhaps if there were fidelity settings, then users would be more aware of the fact that they should behave a certain way in high fidelity settings whereas they can relax a little in low ones.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that the reduction in awareness may lead to increased productivity as a result of the reduction of distracting audio cues. Although the audio cues, such as not knowing which student was speaking, were important to awareness, I also think the visual cues were equally important. The Olsens were unsure that we were paying attention since it did not seem we were looking at their faces due to camera placement. This lack of visual contact led to a perceived decrease in awareness. Overall, nice post.
ReplyDelete