Comment by jrootabega
3 years ago
This is a great example of why in-person collaboration is irreplaceable for discussions and the like. With people you are familiar with, you can semi-interrupt with facial expressions, movements, grunts, etc. You can use body language and tone of voice to make a side remark or "threaded" discussion. You can interrupt at the exact right time and interleave your words with other people's. You can, simply by looking at the other listeners, confirm whether anyone else has the same concerns that you do. And it's instant. So the acceptable threshold for interruption gets higher and the consequences get lower.
On high-latency, low-bandwidth channels (Google Voice, I'm looking in your direction...), you choose between long, confusing silent waiting and constant infuriating interruption.
Have you seen Meta Quest Pro avatars? They mapped facial expressions onto avatars for that specific reason.
I think it'd be extremely interesting to see how it compares to real life, vid calls and other alternatives.
I don't know if I have, to be honest. I've seen some very short clips of people supposedly mapping certain exaggerated facial movements to cartoon avatars that look nothing like them. I guess I don't think that Facebook's solution will be a replacement for the real thing. I think we may get there once we have 3d cameras that can saturate a room, and glasses/contact lens/retinal displays.
Meta is DOA and an utter nonstarter.
"Irreplaceable" is not accurate, since as you said, the big issue is with high latency and low-bandwidth channels.
In the same city with a good connection, video is often about as good.
I still think it's accurate, especially in the context of the article. Video doesn't give you eye contact, let alone selective eye contact among a group. Video doesn't let your ears hear the room around in you in 3d.
VR can provide those things (eye contact maybe with Meta Quest Pro, we'll see if it works)
1 reply →