I may be a spectacularly inconsiderate communicator, but for me the answer is multitasking.
I can and do do a wide range of tasks while having an audio phone call with people. At home I can do basic housework, prepare meals, wander round for all sorts of things with the phone jammed between by head and my shoulder. It works well. I never have had video chat facilities for work (or needed them really) but I can think of any number of times gesticulating at colleagues for private communications while on an audio call, which is far from easy on video. Do you simply turn off the video briefly? If so, how do you explain this to the person you're communicating with?
Give me video chat and I'm tied to the screen. I can't easily do another job in parallel because it's on show and the other party can see that I'm not looking at them. They can see if I look around the screen to a TV, they can (indirectly) see if I open a second window on my computer to try a parallel task because the light to my face from the computer screen suddenly changes. This is quite visible most of the time.
For the times when video is a benefit it's a real benefit in my experience; being able to see the other person's expression, be shown objects or spaces in real time, generally use more communication methods. The bulk of the time though its benefits in my experience are small, and come at the expense of a significant extra burden on the communicators. Video, IMHO, will remain a niche in this area because the costs outweigh benefits to participants.
I agree with you. Video chat as it exists seems to require the full attention of both parties. Like you say, one becomes "tied to the screen". It seems video might be more used if one wasn't tied to the screen.
How can this be done? As Keith writes at Singularity Hub "[…] all too often when making a phone call, I hope the person doesn't even answer so that I can leave a voice message with the pertinent information and get on with my day. With today's video chat, it usually isn't even possible to leave a video message." Why is this not possible?
I think that there are three main formats of conversations (based on speed):
1. Realtime + Continuous (face-to-face AFK interaction, phone calls)
2. Realtime + Intersperced (Instant Messaging [AIM/Jabber], SMS)
3. Not realtime (letters via USPS, typical use of email, posts to blogs)
What is notable is that with video, options exist only for types one and two:
1. Video chat (as implemented by Skype and GTalk/Gmail)
2. [doesn't appear to exist]
3. Video blogging (posting a video to YouTube, emailing your friend the link)
I think people (including Skype) have assumed that realtime video should follow the format of telephone calls - continuous and streaming. This certainly has its place. But what might be more useful would be video IM. In an IM client such as Skype, have a button to record a short message perhaps limited to a total of 30 seconds, just as Twitter limits updates to 140 characters. Send the video and let the recipient watch the video as they are able. Then, the second party can take their time to think of something to say, fix their hair, etc. and respond by recording a short response.
Approaching video this way would remove the initiating parties worry that they are interrupting anything - the recipient only watches their video when they are able and can choose when to respond. It also removes the worry that video means a 'long serious conversation' - instead it can be simply short amusing anecdotes or quick flirtatious quips - what would previously have been expressed through texting/SMS. It lowers the stress of both parties who no longer have to be on-point for an extended period. And it frees both, no longer "tied to the screen".
Because I don't want clients seeing me in boxers, white teeshirt (usually stained with coffee because I have the motor skills of an infant), mussy hair, and a couple of days beard growth while I'm talking about the website/app they're trusting me with actual money to build.
because it's very awkward that the camera is not in the same place you are looking. You're looking at the monitor, when the webcam is most often above the monitor. So all the viewer (and vice versa) sees is you looking down.
It's not "eye-to-eye" conversation. If you want the other person to feel like they are looking at you, you have to look dead into the camera. But then you miss out on seeing the other person.
All you need besides a screen and webcam is a half-silvered mirror, good lighting and an encasing so that the webcam is in the dark, besides light from straight ahead through the mirror. I've been meaning to make this myself, since I spend hours everyday on video chat, but haven't gotten to it yet.
Video chat fails at providing an emotional connection because of this. It leaves you feeling like you are talking past someone. It's a fundamental problem with the technology that can't really be solved unless we literally put a camera in the middle of the screen.
In my experience you can mitigate this effect quite a bit by placing the "loopback" video window of yourself (with Skype) directly under the camera at the top of the screen while also full screening the incoming video.
I wonder how much of this is generational-- my teenage daughter probably videochats more in a week than I have in my life.
I think that over the longue duree, a lot of technology shifts occur not because individuals gradually get convinced to move to the new technology, but because the folks clinging to the old ways eventually die out. (I'm paraphrasing Kuhn on paradigm change in science, of course.)
I think you've hit the nail on the head; my niece and nephews, teenagers and slightly younger, will hang out for hours with multiple video chat windows open.
I suspect that's not it, because we all grew up with videochat - they did it all the time on Star Trek!
More seriously tho', I don't think it's wise to extrapolate from teenagers, because socially, they're not very sophisticated and don't have very long attention spans anyway. Grownups prefer much richer interactions that you need the whole spectrum of body language for (dropped frames in video calls misses this), intonation (poor audio in video calls misses this), ambience, the place you meet matters, and so on. That's why video calling is a solution looking for a problem.
Put simply, video is superfluous to my communication needs in a one-to-one conversation.
Our company is spread out over two states and three cities, so one would think that we're a prime candidate for video calling. There are subtleties that can be expressed by seeing each other that are simply not there when communicating through voice only. However, these subtleties are superfluous to most conversations.
Interestingly, I find video chat most useful in scenarios where it is least available.
One of the most challenging aspects of communication is interruption. Most people consider it rude to interrupt the speaker, but we do it all the time. It's part of our natural flow of conversation. It keeps us from wasting time, and helps refine the conversation.
With one-to-one communication, interruption is simple. You interject audibly, and the speaker will either pause, giving you the go ahead to take the floor, or will continue to finish their thought. This interplay sets the tone for the conversation. There's a subtle play for dominance in any conversation where there are opposing viewpoints.
With many-to-many communication, interruption is complex. Anyone who has ever been on a conference call knows that it is easiest to just keep your mouth shut and let everyone drone on for as long as they need to. In my experience, this is a major contributor to the unnecessary length of conference calls.
It's difficult to interject on a conference call, because too many people are trying to get a word in, and speakers continue too long on a string of points. By the time you can get the speaker's attention, the interjection irrelevant to the current topic.
Video calling among a group has the benefit of allowing participants to use body language to interrupt the speaker. A speaker, seeing a participant visibly uncomfortable, is more likely to pause and allow them to interject.
Unfortunately, group video chat over the most popular medium, Skype, is clumsy (requires Skype 5; can only be initiated from a computer, not mobile) and expensive (not free).
People tend to be self-conscious of the way they are perceived by others and will try to avoid any situations where their self-image (everything from intelligence to physical aesthetics / beauty) can be harmed or their negative self-views (worries) can be re-validated... Especially when alternatives are available.
Video: everything from your voice, to your intelligence, to your looks will be perceived by others.
Voice: looks are out.
Text: none of the above (relatively; you can still make yourself look quiet stupid with bad grammar).
Psychological explanations dealing with egos (the self) are always 100% valid when dealing with humans. It's not about video quality here.
With iPhone FaceTime, when you're holding it at a comfortable distance and looking at the phone, it feels as though you're standing in front of somebody at about a foot's distance, making direct eye contact. Which is basically a Human Behavior 101 case study in making people uncomfortable.
Many people that I asked recently pointed to convenience as the culprit. It is too hard to coordinate a video call, they would say, too much of a pain to setup and initiate. But is that really true? In my gmail chat window right now I can see video icons next to the names of roughly a dozen of my friends that are at their computers right now, logged into gmail at the same time as me, and literally one click away from joining me in a video chat. But guess what? We never click that button.
It's a factor. For people who don't have a one-click flawless iphone experience, clicking on the gchat icon when you don't know exactly what's going to happen is a sufficient barrier that it's not worth worrying about when you know exactly how regular chat will work and will do exactly what you want. Once people figure out how to make it work for them, or the technology gets more simple and reliable, it'll be used a lot though it will never fully replace voice chat or texting. There's already plenty of stories of people using video chat. My roommate uses his iPhone to cook dinner with his mother, who lives 6000 miles away.
Even on Star Trek, video chat wasn't ubiquitous. Communicators did not display video, as quite clearly there are times when it's convenient to hear someone's voice and have eyes free to focus elsewhere.
A lot of times when I talk to people, I don't maintain eye contact the whole time. I'm sure that it leads to all kind of different pseudo-psychiatric theories about me, but I don't care. With video chat, you just have to sit there and stare at the other person's face the whole time, which I find to be a little weird. That, and I find video chat to be pretty unnecessary. In most cases it doesn't add much to the conversation.
i think this is a big factor that people tend to overlook. when you're in a convo w/ someone in person, you can look around briefly, pause to think, etc.
i feel like in video chat you have to be very comfortable w/ the person you're talking to or understand that you CAN look away, etc.
Good article. I completely agree - video chat is inappropriate in a lot of situations, but very useful in situations where you're trying to create/maintain some social bond. I'd never really used it prior to this year while my wife is working abroad, but now we almost always use it to chat. The feeling of connection with the other person is dramatically better when you can actually see them.
I think it's mostly because it's hard to do other things while video chatting. Things like driving or walking or looking something up or typing, etc.
If I have a video chat window open, I feel sorta weird when I cover it up and go look something up or cover it with a notepad window to take notes, or a code editor to write some relevant code, etc. I feel like I'm rudely ignoring someone who's right there. And they have no cue this is happening, either, so they might assume it isn't and say something like, "so like this shows..." while briefly holding something up. And I can't see it just then because the window was covered. They had no way to know that I wasn't looking and missed it. Then there's awkwardness, repeating stuff, etc. It just feels slightly... wrong. IMO.
Edit: It'd be interesting if, while on a video chat, any windows or apps covering the remote participant "showed through" to them. I wonder if that alone would give enough sense of context to make it work a bit better?
Video chats give me the opportunity to feel socially awkward. I most often do not feel that way, but the threat is there.
This is not so with voice or text mediums.
With my girlfriend, parents and siblings I'm at ease and comfortable. In fact, I really enjoy it. With everybody else, though, I feel somewhere between indifferent, annoyed, and dreadful.
I probably video chat once or twice a week on average. Primary uses are to keep in touch with far-flung relatives and take long-distance music lessons.
I'd definitely use it more if my immediate family had another computer with a webcam. That would be great for times when one of us is away for a few days. I expect we will acquire a second device with a webcam later this year, and then we'll see how it works out. :)
Thinking about it now, it seems like it would also be nice for the occasional call with old friends who live too far away to see very often. (We do use it that way occasionally with one of my wife's former roommates.) I'll have to keep that in mind.
On the other hand, there are definitely lots of phone calls I'd rather not have video on -- almost anything business-related, for instance.
I like text more than video. I almost never go to movies, don't like watching YouTube, almost never rent videos...
So, no, I don't want to video chat unless we have a really good reason to. Something that involves showing me a video feed of X, where X can't be copy-pasted.
I don't video chat more often because when there are bandwidth issues, skype decides it will drop the audio portion of the call and devote the remaining bandwidth to the video portion which seems to keep working fine. YMMV but that's how it works for me.
I use FaceTime/iChat video chat daily to consult with other members of our small company as we're spread out across the country. It's a great tool imho and keeps us feeling more close knit than just text or voice communication.
The article asks who could have imagined ten years ago that by now we would all have video phone capability and never use it. Infinite Jest was written 15 years ago. DFW 1, SingularityHub 0
Ok, all the conclusion seem valid, but I choked on this one:
"I hope the person doesn’t even answer so that I can leave a voice message with the pertinent information and get on with my day"
Why do folks think it is ok to embed important information behind multiple prompts and a dozen key jabs separated by seconds of dead time? Then, its like saying "Here you write this down, slave. I'm to busy to send a freaking text or email, I'll just dictate it to you."
I never listen to voice mail. I delete it unheard. I inform everyone that I do this. I'm not alone.
I'm curious about that sort of thing for offices too. But I'm also curious about a home version.
I've thought that it would be cool to equip the living-room screen (formerly known as the TV) with a camera and connect it with similarly equipped screens in the homes of members of my social network. Obviously a privacy mode would be there, but people in small towns and neighborhoods used to do all sorts of stuff out on their front porches (maybe they still do in places), basically advertising to other people they knew that they are open to some conversation. So there is at least a little reason to think people would turn on a "my available friends live" video channel. I'd like to break down the effects on my social networks which space unnecessarily imposes.
[+] [-] eftpotrm|15 years ago|reply
I can and do do a wide range of tasks while having an audio phone call with people. At home I can do basic housework, prepare meals, wander round for all sorts of things with the phone jammed between by head and my shoulder. It works well. I never have had video chat facilities for work (or needed them really) but I can think of any number of times gesticulating at colleagues for private communications while on an audio call, which is far from easy on video. Do you simply turn off the video briefly? If so, how do you explain this to the person you're communicating with?
Give me video chat and I'm tied to the screen. I can't easily do another job in parallel because it's on show and the other party can see that I'm not looking at them. They can see if I look around the screen to a TV, they can (indirectly) see if I open a second window on my computer to try a parallel task because the light to my face from the computer screen suddenly changes. This is quite visible most of the time.
For the times when video is a benefit it's a real benefit in my experience; being able to see the other person's expression, be shown objects or spaces in real time, generally use more communication methods. The bulk of the time though its benefits in my experience are small, and come at the expense of a significant extra burden on the communicators. Video, IMHO, will remain a niche in this area because the costs outweigh benefits to participants.
[+] [-] keane|15 years ago|reply
How can this be done? As Keith writes at Singularity Hub "[…] all too often when making a phone call, I hope the person doesn't even answer so that I can leave a voice message with the pertinent information and get on with my day. With today's video chat, it usually isn't even possible to leave a video message." Why is this not possible?
I think that there are three main formats of conversations (based on speed):
What is notable is that with video, options exist only for types one and two: I think people (including Skype) have assumed that realtime video should follow the format of telephone calls - continuous and streaming. This certainly has its place. But what might be more useful would be video IM. In an IM client such as Skype, have a button to record a short message perhaps limited to a total of 30 seconds, just as Twitter limits updates to 140 characters. Send the video and let the recipient watch the video as they are able. Then, the second party can take their time to think of something to say, fix their hair, etc. and respond by recording a short response.Approaching video this way would remove the initiating parties worry that they are interrupting anything - the recipient only watches their video when they are able and can choose when to respond. It also removes the worry that video means a 'long serious conversation' - instead it can be simply short amusing anecdotes or quick flirtatious quips - what would previously have been expressed through texting/SMS. It lowers the stress of both parties who no longer have to be on-point for an extended period. And it frees both, no longer "tied to the screen".
[+] [-] crikli|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] christopherslee|15 years ago|reply
It's not "eye-to-eye" conversation. If you want the other person to feel like they are looking at you, you have to look dead into the camera. But then you miss out on seeing the other person.
[+] [-] ehsanu1|15 years ago|reply
Errol M0rris used a device with a similar design, called the "Interrotron", so that when he interviewed people, they'd have direct eye contact both with him and the viewers: http://www.errolmorris.com/content/eyecontact/interrotron.ht...
Picture of it here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jkottke/1526404040/
This should really make the design clear: http://www.whiterabbitdesigncompany.com/Miscellaneous/images...
All you need besides a screen and webcam is a half-silvered mirror, good lighting and an encasing so that the webcam is in the dark, besides light from straight ahead through the mirror. I've been meaning to make this myself, since I spend hours everyday on video chat, but haven't gotten to it yet.
[+] [-] splitrocket|15 years ago|reply
Video chat fails at providing an emotional connection because of this. It leaves you feeling like you are talking past someone. It's a fundamental problem with the technology that can't really be solved unless we literally put a camera in the middle of the screen.
[+] [-] michaelbuckbee|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scotty79|15 years ago|reply
This should be interesting task especially when algorithm does not do this 100% perfect.
[+] [-] smackfu|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michael_dorfman|15 years ago|reply
I think that over the longue duree, a lot of technology shifts occur not because individuals gradually get convinced to move to the new technology, but because the folks clinging to the old ways eventually die out. (I'm paraphrasing Kuhn on paradigm change in science, of course.)
[+] [-] snsr|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gaius|15 years ago|reply
More seriously tho', I don't think it's wise to extrapolate from teenagers, because socially, they're not very sophisticated and don't have very long attention spans anyway. Grownups prefer much richer interactions that you need the whole spectrum of body language for (dropped frames in video calls misses this), intonation (poor audio in video calls misses this), ambience, the place you meet matters, and so on. That's why video calling is a solution looking for a problem.
[+] [-] bradleyland|15 years ago|reply
Our company is spread out over two states and three cities, so one would think that we're a prime candidate for video calling. There are subtleties that can be expressed by seeing each other that are simply not there when communicating through voice only. However, these subtleties are superfluous to most conversations.
Interestingly, I find video chat most useful in scenarios where it is least available.
One of the most challenging aspects of communication is interruption. Most people consider it rude to interrupt the speaker, but we do it all the time. It's part of our natural flow of conversation. It keeps us from wasting time, and helps refine the conversation.
With one-to-one communication, interruption is simple. You interject audibly, and the speaker will either pause, giving you the go ahead to take the floor, or will continue to finish their thought. This interplay sets the tone for the conversation. There's a subtle play for dominance in any conversation where there are opposing viewpoints.
With many-to-many communication, interruption is complex. Anyone who has ever been on a conference call knows that it is easiest to just keep your mouth shut and let everyone drone on for as long as they need to. In my experience, this is a major contributor to the unnecessary length of conference calls.
It's difficult to interject on a conference call, because too many people are trying to get a word in, and speakers continue too long on a string of points. By the time you can get the speaker's attention, the interjection irrelevant to the current topic.
Video calling among a group has the benefit of allowing participants to use body language to interrupt the speaker. A speaker, seeing a participant visibly uncomfortable, is more likely to pause and allow them to interject.
Unfortunately, group video chat over the most popular medium, Skype, is clumsy (requires Skype 5; can only be initiated from a computer, not mobile) and expensive (not free).
[+] [-] bradleyland|15 years ago|reply
http://www.asel.udel.edu/icslp/cdrom/vol3/685/a685.pdf
http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.js...
[+] [-] powertower|15 years ago|reply
Video: everything from your voice, to your intelligence, to your looks will be perceived by others. Voice: looks are out. Text: none of the above (relatively; you can still make yourself look quiet stupid with bad grammar).
Psychological explanations dealing with egos (the self) are always 100% valid when dealing with humans. It's not about video quality here.
[+] [-] thestoicjester|15 years ago|reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGVSIkEi3mM
[+] [-] Goladus|15 years ago|reply
It's a factor. For people who don't have a one-click flawless iphone experience, clicking on the gchat icon when you don't know exactly what's going to happen is a sufficient barrier that it's not worth worrying about when you know exactly how regular chat will work and will do exactly what you want. Once people figure out how to make it work for them, or the technology gets more simple and reliable, it'll be used a lot though it will never fully replace voice chat or texting. There's already plenty of stories of people using video chat. My roommate uses his iPhone to cook dinner with his mother, who lives 6000 miles away.
Even on Star Trek, video chat wasn't ubiquitous. Communicators did not display video, as quite clearly there are times when it's convenient to hear someone's voice and have eyes free to focus elsewhere.
[+] [-] morphoyle|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ookblah|15 years ago|reply
i feel like in video chat you have to be very comfortable w/ the person you're talking to or understand that you CAN look away, etc.
[+] [-] AlisdairO|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BigZaphod|15 years ago|reply
If I have a video chat window open, I feel sorta weird when I cover it up and go look something up or cover it with a notepad window to take notes, or a code editor to write some relevant code, etc. I feel like I'm rudely ignoring someone who's right there. And they have no cue this is happening, either, so they might assume it isn't and say something like, "so like this shows..." while briefly holding something up. And I can't see it just then because the window was covered. They had no way to know that I wasn't looking and missed it. Then there's awkwardness, repeating stuff, etc. It just feels slightly... wrong. IMO.
Edit: It'd be interesting if, while on a video chat, any windows or apps covering the remote participant "showed through" to them. I wonder if that alone would give enough sense of context to make it work a bit better?
[+] [-] encoderer|15 years ago|reply
This is not so with voice or text mediums.
With my girlfriend, parents and siblings I'm at ease and comfortable. In fact, I really enjoy it. With everybody else, though, I feel somewhere between indifferent, annoyed, and dreadful.
[+] [-] colomon|15 years ago|reply
I'd definitely use it more if my immediate family had another computer with a webcam. That would be great for times when one of us is away for a few days. I expect we will acquire a second device with a webcam later this year, and then we'll see how it works out. :)
Thinking about it now, it seems like it would also be nice for the occasional call with old friends who live too far away to see very often. (We do use it that way occasionally with one of my wife's former roommates.) I'll have to keep that in mind.
On the other hand, there are definitely lots of phone calls I'd rather not have video on -- almost anything business-related, for instance.
[+] [-] pnathan|15 years ago|reply
So, no, I don't want to video chat unless we have a really good reason to. Something that involves showing me a video feed of X, where X can't be copy-pasted.
[+] [-] mistermann|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] modoc|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dablya|15 years ago|reply
:)
[+] [-] danielhfrank|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|15 years ago|reply
"I hope the person doesn’t even answer so that I can leave a voice message with the pertinent information and get on with my day"
Why do folks think it is ok to embed important information behind multiple prompts and a dozen key jabs separated by seconds of dead time? Then, its like saying "Here you write this down, slave. I'm to busy to send a freaking text or email, I'll just dictate it to you."
I never listen to voice mail. I delete it unheard. I inform everyone that I do this. I'm not alone.
[+] [-] lurker19|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jodrellblank|15 years ago|reply
If so, what's it like? How well does it work?
[+] [-] nooneelse|15 years ago|reply
I've thought that it would be cool to equip the living-room screen (formerly known as the TV) with a camera and connect it with similarly equipped screens in the homes of members of my social network. Obviously a privacy mode would be there, but people in small towns and neighborhoods used to do all sorts of stuff out on their front porches (maybe they still do in places), basically advertising to other people they knew that they are open to some conversation. So there is at least a little reason to think people would turn on a "my available friends live" video channel. I'd like to break down the effects on my social networks which space unnecessarily imposes.
[+] [-] juiceandjuice|15 years ago|reply