
Why Don’t We Video Chat More Often? - kkleiner
http://singularityhub.com/2011/05/15/why-dont-we-video-chat-more-often/
======
eftpotrm
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.

~~~
keane
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".

~~~
eftpotrm
Just a little thing, but Windows Live Messenger seems to support leaving video
messages for people. I've never used it, but the option is there in the
interface.

------
crikli
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.

------
christopherslee
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.

~~~
splitrocket
This.

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.

~~~
nametoremember
Is this possible?

~~~
petercooper
Stuck on the iPad so I'm not hunting a citation but yes, there was an article
going around about a year ago of a prototype of such a screen.

------
michael_dorfman
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.)

~~~
gaius
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.

~~~
ugh
I don't understand. How do you connect your last sentence to what you wrote
before?

You seem to say that there are situations where video calls would be
appropriate, there are, however, problems that make video chat not quite as
good as face to face communication.

Voilá, we just found the perfect niche for video chat: all those situations
where face to face communication would be desirable but is impossible or too
expensive.

The technology is cheap and by now built into everything, let me just share
this little anecdote: We regularly present the status of our bachelor's thesis
to our Prof and one student couldn't attend in person so she just used video
chat. The university didn't have to buy expensive equipment, we just used the
projector that's standard in every meeting room and the Prof's old laptop with
camera. It was not as good presenting face to face but far better than nothing
at all or a telephone call.

Nobody thought of video chat when building the infrastructure but now it's
there and can be used at a moment's notice.

This additional mode of communication crept up on us but now it's available
and I think there are quite a few situations where its use is appropriate. (By
far the minority but that's not really so important.)

------
bradleyland
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).

~~~
bradleyland
I went looking for material on the matter of interruption in conversation and
found some interesting (if not straight forward) information.

<http://www.asel.udel.edu/icslp/cdrom/vol3/685/a685.pdf>

[http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.js...](http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED294261&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED294261)

------
powertower
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.

------
thestoicjester
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.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGVSIkEi3mM>

------
Goladus
_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.

------
morphoyle
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.

~~~
ookblah
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.

------
AlisdairO
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.

------
BigZaphod
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?

------
encoderer
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.

------
colomon
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.

------
pnathan
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.

------
mistermann
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.

------
modoc
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.

------
dablya
According to David Wallace Foster: [http://www.martin-
brown.net/downloads/DavidFosterWallace-Inf...](http://www.martin-
brown.net/downloads/DavidFosterWallace-InfiniteJest-Telephony.pdf) (PDF)

:)

~~~
danielhfrank
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

------
JoeAltmaier
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.

~~~
lurker19
You may have it backwards. Does your voicemail outgoing message include your
email address? Do you reply to email promptly? Most do not.

~~~
jodrellblank
Or why not have voicemail emailed to you?

~~~
fps
Google voice has quite a bit of trouble transcribing the clearest of calls.
I've got 170 or so voicemails in my google voice box and maybe 1/4 of them are
transcribed well enough that I don't need to listen to the mp3.

My voicemail message tells people to email me if they want to hear back
quickly.

------
jodrellblank
Does anyone here do two offices with projectors and video cameras at one end,
to make one big virtual office, as an always-on thing?

If so, what's it like? How well does it work?

~~~
nooneelse
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.

------
juiceandjuice
I guess the author has never met a deaf person.

------
ignifero
As they say in TV, video chatting with your clothes on is a bit pointless.

~~~
ctdonath
Kids. Grandma.

'nuff said.

