101–110 of 149 posts
My main complaints are two: - It takes 4-5 clicks to create a meeting and share the URL, which is what I want to do most of the time, multiple times a day. I end up preferring Skype (when with only 1-2 other people) just because of the hassle of "Creating a meeting". - The UI randomly moves around: the chat button and the chat, for example, are in a place when Zoom is in window mode, in a different place when Zoom is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the remaining 0.1% actually read some UX design textbooks from the 90's: 1. Incomprehensible icons 2. No use of color to indicate the most likely new action 3. Weird and inconsistent transitions and dialogs 4. Many different fonts, font-sizes and text decorations. 5. Flat design makes it difficult to know what to click on. The list goes on, and on, and on. It seems the team did no UX testing at all.
i always thought its common sense until i realized its not. We just switched to a new ticketing system, now the description field is 2 rows high. 2 rows! for a fucking issue description field -_-
^ 90% of CEOs.
When everything is chromium there is no competitive advantage for any of these chat applications. For example, before, Skype used to be based on the Qt framework and it used less resources and actually had more features - like universal push-to-talk and better integration into the OS. Welcome to the future - lets Javascript all the things... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SCfNhyIo_U
I remember the time when there was a native client for Skype on Linux. It probably used less resources, yes, but it was horribly lacking in features compared to Windows or MacOS native clients. Now that everything is javascript, Skype on Linux works great, apart from being a godawful resource hog. I found it really pleasant to use over the last several years. Video calls work great, screen sharing works great, even conference calls work, which they never before did on Linux. Couldn't be happier with the changes.
I find the metaphor of a "call" in Skype or Google Meet easier to use for chats with relatives than the metaphor of a "meeting". The latter one works great in a business setting, when you "schedule a meeting" and post its details to Slack, or email them, or stick them in a calendar; but when you want an immediate one-on-one chat, it's so much easier to "call" a person. Zoom weirds me out in that in order to chat with…
I find the metaphor of a "call" in Skype or Google Meet easier to use for chats with relatives than the metaphor of a "meeting". The latter one works great in a business setting, when you "schedule a meeting" and post its details to Slack, or email them, or stick them in a calendar; but when you want an immediate one-on-one chat, it's so much easier to "call" a person. Zoom weirds me out in that in order to chat with…
I find the metaphor of a "call" in Skype or Google Meet easier to use for chats with relatives than the metaphor of a "meeting". The latter one works great in a business setting, when you "schedule a meeting" and post its details to Slack, or email them, or stick them in a calendar; but when you want an immediate one-on-one chat, it's so much easier to "call" a person. Zoom weirds me out in that in order to chat with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zoom does just work - I've used hangouts/meet, skype, whereby/appear.in, discord, talky Of all those Zoom had the best balance of stability/resource use/call joinability I find meet a PITA to set up and invite random people WebRTC browser chat is great for rooms >= 6 people and is my preferred choice But zoom works pretty well from 1:1 up to 500:1 and is very easy to join Don't get me wrong, I hate the Zoom client bu…
I have to say, I've found both Google Meet and Discord to be more reliable in the "just works" department (despite neither being perfect). My experience with Zoom was a job interview where the link kept asking me to install a browser plugin, even though I already had, even if I clicked a link that was apparently a web fall back. I think I had to use a phone dial in in the end
AFAIK Zoom doesn’t use browser plugins but WebEx definitely does.
I find the metaphor of a "call" in Skype or Google Meet easier to use for chats with relatives than the metaphor of a "meeting". The latter one works great in a business setting, when you "schedule a meeting" and post its details to Slack, or email them, or stick them in a calendar; but when you want an immediate one-on-one chat, it's so much easier to "call" a person. Zoom weirds me out in that in order to chat with…
Zoom could easily subsume this though, just add a contact list and a call UI. I guess that actually isn’t entirely trivial but certainly doable.
That's all you do: click Contacts, click the person, click Meet, and they answer the call. It also shows you if they're available, on another call, etc.
I find the metaphor of a "call" in Skype or Google Meet easier to use for chats with relatives than the metaphor of a "meeting". The latter one works great in a business setting, when you "schedule a meeting" and post its details to Slack, or email them, or stick them in a calendar; but when you want an immediate one-on-one chat, it's so much easier to "call" a person. Zoom weirds me out in that in order to chat with…
Call them:
1. Click Contacts.
2. Click the person.
3. Click Meet.
Or use your personal meeting room:
1. Click New Meeting.
2. Click Participants.
3. Click the person.
4. Click Invite.
I find the metaphor of a "call" in Skype or Google Meet easier to use for chats with relatives than the metaphor of a "meeting". The latter one works great in a business setting, when you "schedule a meeting" and post its details to Slack, or email them, or stick them in a calendar; but when you want an immediate one-on-one chat, it's so much easier to "call" a person. Zoom weirds me out in that in order to chat with…
That's not entirely true. Zoom does have tabs called 'Chat' and 'Contacts' where you can find all your contacts & initiate a 'Call' with them without ever having to share a URL / ID