Live data from Hacker News

Why to auto-answer video calls

blog.quicklychat.com

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: Why to auto-answer video calls

#11
post #10
post #6

About the product itself[1], I don't think I would be comfortable with coworkers being able to glean if I'm on an IDE or Hacker News. [1] http://www.quicklychat.com/

The SmartStatus is actually fully configurable, so you can choose which applications/websites you appear red/yellow/green for. So if you set Hacker News and your IDE to the same color, then your coworkers won't be able to tell :-)

Ah, thank you! For some reason, reading "Fully Customizable" on the site I didn't understand it as such. Is it possible to set (until chosen otherwise) uniformly to red/yellow/green? As in, to override the SmartStatus and use it as run of the mill IM applications without losing the settings?

Re: Why to auto-answer video calls

#12
post #11
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SmartStatus is actually fully configurable, so you can choose which applications/websites you appear red/yellow/green for. So if you set Hacker News and your IDE to the same color, then your coworkers won't be able to tell :-)

Ah, thank you! For some reason, reading "Fully Customizable" on the site I didn't understand it as such. Is it possible to set (until chosen otherwise) uniformly to red/yellow/green? As in, to override the SmartStatus and use it as run of the mill IM applications without losing the settings?

Right now, you can manually set your status to either Online or Unavailable. If you're unavailable, then people can't initiate video connections with you, and your status is gray. If you set your status to Online, then people can chat you and your colored status is determined by which application/website you have in the foreground. The application/website to color mapping is something you can configure yourself, but right now it's not possible to force yourself to a particular color for a period of time, although that's a great idea that we can implement in a coming release.

Re: Why to auto-answer video calls

#13
Sorry, no, popping up a window on my screen is not comparable to a co-worker walking up to my desk. Not even remotely close.

This is so contrived, it hurts...

And then, on your homepage:

This is a big part of the reason teams are much less productive when they're spread apart.

Nonsense. I've worked with many distributed teams and there simply is no correlation between productivity and location.

I don't think you're doing yourselves a favor by pushing the age old "it's just like being there"-fairytale. You can insult the intelligence of your audience like that when you're a Vodafone or a Samsung, but not when you're trying to sell a product (and likely to a largely technical audience).

The question that you have to answer on your homepage is: Why not Skype?

Do that in bold, front and center. Don't bore me with marketing lorem ipsum...

Re: Why to auto-answer video calls

#14
When your phone rings, though, you’re forced to act. A ringing phone is specifically designed to take your attention away from whatever you’re doing. Even if you’re too busy to talk, you still have to actively decide to reject the call. And that decision takes you away from whatever you’re doing.

This is the reason why if you really need your work to be done, you got to turn off your phone, cancel your meetings, stop your emails from popping-up, etc.

The effects of interruptions on productivity is now well-known. They kill it.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201204/why... http://workingmoms.about.com/od/executiveopportunities/a/5-W...

Re: Why to auto-answer video calls

#15
Thought the concept to be interesting. Installed the mac version, as did my fiance. Signed up, launched (fiance remarked that it's ugly, including the installer - doesn't bother me), added each other.

Called and got massive non-stop feedback. It's unfortunate that the complete lack of echo cancellation (skype, gtalk, etc work great for us using identical setup) makes this dead on arrival.

Re: Why to auto-answer video calls

#18
Auto-answearing ANY form of comminication is not good.

I understand the problem that this approach is trying to address and whilst it is in some way a problem there are better ways. I spent less than a minute thinking of a better solution (IMHO) and that is:

You have a webcam on your desk (or remote hot vid mini desk spots) and you are permanatly logged into that. This allows the remote worker to be apart of the office and also for people to walk up and speak to them, allowing the remote worker to be seen as well as see who is approaching, instead of wam bam in your face. This also affords people to see when they are busy or not. To me this approach is better. But this and also assumes the remote worker has the bandwith to accomodate this and there not on some 3g/28.8 connection due to there location and for alot that is why they are remote working anyhow. Rememebr remote working also covers workers in different locations. I and many others I can garantee have worked in companies with more than one office in more than one location and none of them have an issue and tend to still use bridged conference calls or phone calls. Video has it's uses but it also has its distractions and overheads that can outway the task at hand.

Re: Why to auto-answer video calls

#19
That sounds like an interesting way to add some of the nuance of physical presence to internet communication, and I would definitely try it. God help the person who occasionally picks their nose at their desk though. You are always watched!

Re: Why to auto-answer video calls

#20
If an employer ever wanted me to use this, it would have to be wired to a webcam that was pointed 30° away from me. I'd take my coworker popping up on my screen the same way I take a coworker knocking on the doorframe of my IRL space and asking if I'm busy, and my wheeling over into the camera's view would be like spinning around to say "no, what's up?"
Post reply on HN