Latest headlines: Jeff Hastings on thoughtful deployment of temperature-screening solutions, Christopher Jaynes on “double join” and more
September 1, 2020 | Volume: 13 | Issue: 17
What a year it has been. Whoops, did I say year? I meant month. But also year. And this past month has felt like a year what with moving the college students in/out within a week. Leah McCann wrote last time about how our alma mater continues to make headlines, and it isn’t even basketball season! (I know we are probably not going to have much of a basketball season.)
But once more, our plight sheds light at the end of the tunnel because where there is a problem, technology offers a solution. I know that most schools and universities aren’t super looking forward to the choice of whether to keep students around or send them home after spending all that money on updating equipment for HyFlex classrooms, but that’s life. Never forget that keeping yourselves, students, faculty and staff is what is important here.
Although there isn’t a perfect solution to the whole “what the heck are we doing and what is going on in schools” question at the moment, we’re figuring it out.
Speaking of figuring it out — the columns I have for you this week are about just that. Jeff Hastings writes about the different temperature-screening solutions out there and the ups and downs of all options. Christopher Jaynes writes about the productivity killer called “double join” in videoconferencing. Finally, Mark Coxon writes about IT vs. experience. All are great and worthy reads.
Also — scroll down and check out Kramer’s new matrix switcher, AmpliVox’s lectern and Sony’s upgraded BRC camera range!
A deluge of temperature-screening solutions have emerged, marketed as simple and effective ways to address new health and safety guidelines in the wake of COVID-19. But not all temperature-screening devices are created equal, and it’s important to consider their differences.
If I walk into a video-enabled room with my team to meet with external vendors, I’m not asked to join the meeting to turn on my camera. I’m already on camera with the team. This is also true of audio. Of course remote users can hear me; I’m in a room that’s in the call. So why, when I want to share content, do I need to join the meeting? The answer lies in some interesting history of how video conferencing emerged from voice technologies and ignored the content use case early on. This is true for Zoom, WebEx, Teams, GoToMeeting and many other systems. If you spend a few thousand dollars, you can build a pretty great video conferencing room – users can walk into the room, and, fairly simply hold a video/audio conference with remote users. But all this breaks down when content is shared (as it is in most meetings).
Suppose you’re active in social media at all. In that case, you may have noticed that quite a few strong opinions are resurfacing about AV’s “Experience” movement that has been happening since InfoComm became AVIXA. I still believe that the experience movement is significant, perhaps even more so today as we reenvision public spaces, restaurants and corporate offices to offer unique outcomes that can’t be recreated remotely. I also know that the world has surged forward with mass adoption of digital tools to connect people and resources over the past six months, so the importance of AV’s IT-based segments are also more critical than ever.