Web Conferencing Blog

Integrating video functionality into web conferences is the new hot topic in online collaboration and many vendors are promoting their new video HD functionalities. Those of you that are tingling with excitement brace yourselves: here’s the reality check.

Let’s start with the basics of online collaboration. The paradigm here is that you want to share your virtual workspace, the center of your activities with others: your desktop – and yes, some might only want to share documents via their browser, which is fine, too. Now, along comes HD video, allowing you to share documents while listening to each other and actually seeing each other in high-res. Well ain’t that just a peach? No its not.

Having up to six participants displayed next to the desktop you want to see can be quite a distraction. And honestly, if someone is introducing a new product via web conference does it really matter what the presenter looks like? Shouldn’t the focus be on the presentation?

The most likely usage scenario for video conferencing is within teams whose members are situated at multiple locations. Skype and iChat enable video conferencing in such a scenario already today and it does make sense for web conferencing providers to include the video functionality for these cases. Next to such internal meetings of globally spread teams video conferencing can also make sense in a one-to-many scenario, i.e. one person presents to an audience and appears in a small window on the viewers’ screens. But then again that could just end up being a distraction.

From a technical perspective delivering HD video conferencing is possible thanks to the widespread accessibility of broadband. BUT: just as with audio conferencing there is one major setback. Not everybody has a decent webcam, or any webcam at all. So just as with VoIP some users might be excluded simply because the peripheral equipment needed is not in place.

The main driver of video conferencing is the quality of video and we predict that usage will increase, although mainly in familiar surroundings with your colleagues and not with your customer you are trying to impress with your presentation. And lets face it, this does have another huge advantage: If you slept on your hair funny right before your big presentation nobody will know…

In a nutshell, Saba allows participants of web conferences with an iPad to view another participants’ screens or content that has been uploaded by others. Unfortunately, with your iPad you cannot have a look at the list of participants, which we think would have been a nice feature.

Saba Centra's whiteboard viewed on an iPad

Saba Centra allows you to interact with other participants of an online meeting a little when you are on your iPad. You can chat and at the bottom of the screen you have icons that allow you to show your agreement or dislike of whatever is being presented. If a presentation is really good you can click on the “applause” icon. We are sure the presenter will appreciate it.

This was another interesting test: Cisco WebEx is the number three in our ranking of online meeting solutions. So we were anxious to find out how it would perform on an iPad.

The answer: so-so! You can schedule and host a meeting, view the attendee list, and chat with the other participants.

WebEx' chat functionality on iPad

What bugged us in our tests was that you cannot upload any content from your iPad. Also, it is not possible to share your iPad’s desktop with others.

If you disregard these two issues, the performance of WebEx on the iPad really is solid.

We knew that our number-one-ranking tool, Citrix GoToMeeting, was compatible for iPad. Now we tested its actual performance.

It comes as no real surprise that the quality was very good, with no latencies for VoIP and shared screen. Additionally users always have an overview of who is in the meeting with the attendee list displayed to the right.

Overall, a really convincing performance, BUT: only as a participant. iPad users can only watch others present. All the usual goodies like desktop sharing, app sharing, and chat are not available.

You can find all the details on GoToMeeting and iPad on the GoToMeeting website.

Web conferencing solutions can be divided into two groups based on how documents are presented. Files can either be uploaded into a virtual data room on a server, converted into the tool-specific format, and then displayed. Or, they simply remain on a participant’s desktop, which is then published via desktop sharing.

The second option is more flexible because – without previous conversion – documents of any type can be accessed and edited online by multiple participants at the same time. This also means other participants’ desktops can be viewed. Of course, it is recommended that participants “clean-up” their desktops in advance!

A prerequisite to desktop sharing is that users install software locally. Most tools do not require administrator rights for implementation – simply extended port enablement. The downside: this can lead to problems in large companies with strict authorization policies. E.g. many firms block the use of third-party applications – especially if they are sourced from the Internet.

One of the great advantages of providing documents via desktop sharing is that it can be done spontaneously. When preparing a meeting it is easy to forget to upload a document well in advance, and handling the upload during a meeting is time consuming and might even be blocked by the tool. And what if the meeting goes in another direction than originally planned? Then you can react quickly and just whip out the document you need.

So when it comes to document sharing during a web conference the question is basically: server or desktop? We tend to lean towards desktop…

Range and number of functionalities are top priorities for most vendors of online collaboration tools, sometimes without taking into consideration whether all those functionalities offered are really needed and make sense.

Talking communities’ top priority is inclusion, making web conferencing technology available for everyone. The tool can be used without broadband and offers a variety of interface languages for participants from all over the world. A text-to-speech functionality as well as various settings for size and color of texts also make the tool an option for the visually impaired.

The tool does have its limitations, though. It only runs on Windows, thus excluding all Mac-users… And it seems as though desktop-sharing was also not possible.

Still we think this is a refreshing approach to online collaboration. Since the initial aim of the tool differs greatly from that of the other tools in our ranking, a comparison is not possible. But you can find out more about talking communities in a comparative study conducted by the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign.

We have just finished our last round of testing new web conferencing solutions. Here are the results:

MegaMeeting is a good solution for online collaboration. The handling of the tool is a bit complicated, though and there is no real transparency in regards to pricing on the website. InstantPresenter offers functionalities that are central to holding webinars and neglects important features essential to web conferencing, such as transferal of mouse and keyboard control in desktop-sharing mode.

Search the German Wikipedia site for “Webinar” and you will get an article explaining among other things that the word is a composite of “Web” and “Seminar”. Search the English site for “Webinar” and you will be redirected to an article on “web conferencing” whereas the German site offers an additional article on web conferencing next to webinars. So obviously the English version of Wikipedia treats “webinar” and “web conference” as synonyms in contrast to the German version. Since Wikipedia is claimed to reflect the knowledge of the masses it is pretty safe to assume that there exists some confusion regarding the web conferencing terminology.

Agreed, there is no clear-cut distinction, but since we evaluate web conferencing solutions on webconferencing-test.com we feel that the basic terms and criteria must be defined, so that we can begin with an impartial set of distinctions when testing software. So here’s how we use the terms:

A web conference typically is a non-public online meeting with focus on collaboration. One person is the formal host, but the role of presenter can easily be switched along with keyboard and mouse control. Desktop sharing is the preferred mode for collaboration since it allows for easy exchange of information, access to various tools, and editing of files. Attendees are invited individually by the meeting host – a good software offers an invitation functionality. Other, more asymmetric forms of online meetings can also be regarded as web conferences, when e.g. a presentation is held in a rather informal setting, with few attendees who can give feedback at any time.

In a webinar the roles of presenter/moderator on the one side and attendee/listener on the other side are fixed. The attendees are invited individually by the presenter and are passive viewers/listeners throughout the entire webinar. Possible forms of giving feedback are polls, a chat function, and  question rounds that can be initiated by the moderator only. An open registration to webinars is also possible. Important functionalities are reporting – who has attended? – and archiving of the entire webinar so that it can later be published on a website or sent to the attendees.

On webconferencing-test.com we focus on software for actual web conferences and point out tools that can also be used for webinars. For more in-depth knowledge and additional infos on webinars you can visit Ken Molay’s Blog.

This leaves us with webcasts as our final term, which are another subcategory of online meetings. In general, a webcast is a live or recorded event that targets a large audience. There are no interactive elements offered at all and attendees can often participate without registering. Multimedia elements – especially video – are featured heavily in webcasts.

So, this is how we differentiate between web conferences, webinars, and webcasts. Please feel free to comment if you disagree or if you feel we have hit the nail spot-on.

Some online conferencing solutions offer only one option, some offer both. But which is actually more useful?

With desktop sharing the focus is on the participants. The host invites the attendees to have a look at his desktop. This has the great advantage that quick change between documents and applications is possible and that the host can quickly search the file structure for an additional document if needed. If the entire desktop is shared, online meetings with external contacts may be a bit delicate if the entire desktop is displayed instead of selected applications. Also, a “messy” desktop or an unorderly file structure are sources of possible embarrassment. A good online conferencing solution should therefore definitely offer a screen cleaning function.

Web conferencing in virtual rooms focuses on the event. The atmosphere is not as “informal” as with desktop sharing. All participants meet in one room and have access to the same range of functionalities, e.g. presentation tools and a whiteboard. The possibilities of interaction are more restricted in a virtual room since documents must be uploaded and are often only accepted in MS Office or PDF format. Only few online conferencing solutions offer interactive handling of documents so that in most cases it is strictly watch or present.

Considering our focus on web conferencing solutions, desktop sharing definitely is the preferred option. If you think differently we would be glad to hear your thoughts.

RHUB now provides users with GoMeetNow, an online meeting solution remarkably well suited for desktop sharing. The tool made the top ten of our ranking.
VIA3 Professional only makes it into the top twenty. The main reason is its restriction of only allowing users of a VIA3 account to participate in online meetings.