Hi John, both your thoughts are not only wise, but already on the high-priority to-do list for the Meetecho team. We'll keep you and the others updated with respect to these and other improvements to the platform.
Thanks a lot for your feedback, Simon Il 10 Aprile 2016 23:38:48 CEST, John C Klensin <j...@jck.com> ha scritto: >Simon, > >A thought about one aspect of your note... > >--On Sunday, April 10, 2016 22:11 +0200 Simon Pietro Romano ><sprom...@unina.it> wrote: > >>... >> In case of remote presentations, each remotee obviously adds >> one further video stream to the pack. If you add to that the >> lower- bandwidth Meetecho traffic (chat, client-server polling >> and the like), plus some background traffic not generated by >> Meetecho, you easily arrive at (or close to) saturation. >>... > >So, suppose one has several "remotees" sending video. I don't >think we've seen that so far with IETF, where it has tended to >be, at most, one remote presenter at a time, but it could easily >occur if/as we start introducing remote hubs as a serious >participation (as distinct from outreach) mechanism. > >While Meetecho has relatively good arrangements (now) for >switching the screen from a focus on slides to a focus on one or >another of the video streams and back [1], if I'm a remote >person who is bandwidth-limited or computer-cycles-limited, I'd >really like to be able to control which video stream(s) are >competing for that bandwidth. Now, for the general case, I >think that is unrealistic. But it may be that a pair of >Meetecho feeds, one more or less as present and the other >designed to minimize bandwidth -- fewer video panes on the >right even you have to scan between them, maybe lower resolution >in those panes compared to the center one, etc. -- would be >worth thinking about. > >On a slightly related topic, the way Meetecho appears on my >screen forces me to make a choice between the "Participants" >pane and the Jabber one on the left even when there is a lot of >spare real estate on the right (due to only one video stream >plus monitoring my local camera which is apparently not being >sent back to you anyway). Possibly some rethinking of those >relationships might be useful. > >best, > john > >p.s. As someone who has been doing this for most (but not all) >meetings for a while, let me add my voice to others -- the >meeting over meeting and year over year improvements are nothing >short of fantastic. > > >[1] Once one figures out how to use it; the "finding out how" >parts remain a bit problematic.
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
