What is I-O?

(Adapted from Diamond & Roberts, 1996).

many calls as you like, all for the same monthly fee (compare that to those 10 a minute deals!).

Another limitation for home users involves the manner in which home users connect to the Internet. Most connections are over TCP/IP dial-up networks, which typically run at a relatively slow rate of 14.4 to 28.8 MHz. Video over these connections is painfully slow and jerky. However, there is a great improvement when connections are faster (e.g., a direct connection to the Internet, LAN, etc.). The trade-off is cost. Faster connections (e.g., ISDN, $40–70/month) cost more but make VMC from home much more workable.

Finally, VMC is growing more prevalent in education. Courses and even entire programs offered via distance learning —the next mantra in education—are growing at a tremendous rate, for many of the same reasons spurring the growth of telecommuting. Distance learning is particularly important for rural states, especially here in Nebraska. Most of the universities and campuses are located in the eastern part of Nebraska, making it difficult to provide educational services to those in the central and western parts of the state. One way to meet the state-wide demands for education is through distance learning. To illustrate, last semester I (PC) taught a distance-delivered course to students in two disparate geographical locations, here at UNO ("on-site") as well as an off-site campus in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, in the outermost western part of Nebraska. The on-site classroom was held in one of our high-technology classrooms outfitted with a television camera, monitors for viewing both on- and off-site classrooms, a VCR, two computers, and a satellite connection for beaming TV transmissions back and forth between the two campuses. The students at the remote location were able to interact with me and on-site classmates much to the same degree as students situated on-site.

Distance learning has a been around for a while in various forms, including videotapes, television, as well as the traditional "correspondence" course. These forms of delivery provide an educational environment which is inherently passive and asynchronous. Many students new to distance learning often do not fare well given the extreme dissimilarity to the familiar traditional classroom setting. In contrast, distance learning using VMC allows the desirable property of interactivity, permitting active, synchronous participation in classroom activities by all students, as in the traditional classroom experience. Of course, these are the classroom environments to which most of us are accustomed, so one of the advantages of the new forms of distance-delivered education will be a wider appeal and improved acceptance of these alternative forms of education.

An example of how Jason and I use VMC is shown in Figure 1. This is a screen capture of the two of us communicating via videoconference from opposite ends of campus. The VMC software we are using is Microsoft’s NetMeeting. NetMeeting provides not only video and audio communication, but other communication-enhancing functions, as we’ll discuss later. The particular function we are using in this figure is called "application sharing and collaboration." This allows two users at disparate locations (using different computers) to work simultaneously on a software application located on only one of the computers. The software does not have to be installed on both computers. Here we are using Microsoft’s Visual Basic 5, a software development application. Essentially, I’m running Visual Basic on my computer, but at the same time, Jason is using it also (through the NetMeeting connection). So in this instance, we are developing a simple program in Visual Basic, working synchronously, with any changes made by either of us displayed on both remote computers.

This simple example illustrates many benefits of VMC. For instance, engineers and scientists in different parts of the world could work on the same program, brainstorming ideas, making changes to the program, and sharing information in a way otherwise possible only through face-to-face meetings. From a conceptual team–environment perspective there is little difference between the traditional face-to-face work meeting and working in this VMC-facilitated environment. For instance, video and audio allow each team member to see and hear other members with whom they are interacting, run through what-if scenarios using the same software, or exchange ideas via an electronic whiteboard or file transfer (to be discussed below). These advantages can also transfer to the educational setting. A student at a remote end of campus who has a problem with a part of a program could "dial" me up in NetMeeting, and I could walk him or her through the program without

the student ever having to come to my office (or I to the remote end of campus).

For those of you who have to have the latest and speediest in technology, you are in luck. VMC software requires quite a bit of computing power. From our own experience we would describe minimum software and hardware requirements as follows: a Pentium 133MHz (or comparable Macintosh or UNIX system), 32 MB of RAM, a good video card with 2 MB of RAM, a PC-based video camera ($70-$250), and approximately 50 MB of hard disk space. Note that these are realistic specifications based on our own experience. Usually, the manufacturers describe minimum system requirements, and we’ve found them often to be too low. As Jason will discuss below, many VMC software packages are free (e.g., Netscape’s Conference, Microsoft’s NetMeeting), and others are quite cheap (Whitepine’s CU-SEEME).

Application sharing is an exciting feature with many applications in I-O psychology. It can be used for cooperative work on projects, and it also has potential for selection, training, and performance appraisal. Since we’ve already discussed it in some detail, our next step is to examine the other tools available for VMC, including live audio and video, whiteboards, text-based chat, and file transfers. We will finish up with an admittedly subjective review of the various software packages available.

Outside of application sharing, this is probably the most exciting aspect of VMC software. Internet telephony with video offers the opportunity to conduct long-distance conversations for free, and includes live video. At its best, conversations are as clear as on a normal telephone, accompanied by decent video. The audio quality is generally very good across a variety of connections, but can be choppy when the Internet is very busy, or when greater loads are placed on the individual computer systems. Meanwhile, the days of completely live, clear video are still some ways away. For now, the video picture received is typically recognizable but a little blurry, like a scene observed through a very slightly rain-streaked window. The video refreshes somewhat less frequently than required for a completely "live" appearance, leading to an effect more like a very slow strobe light. A final limitation is that the video picture tends to be fairly small on most screens, typically hovering around the size of a large postage stamp. At best, you can still pick up subtle facial expressions, but the largest video picture (without zooming, which merely represents the same image in more space but does nothing to refine or clarify the image) is still only about the size of half a postcard.

It is one thing to describe a picture, but it is quite another to draw it out. Shared whiteboards are like souped-up drawing programs in which everybody shares the canvas. All of the common drawing tools are typically represented, including geometric figures, freehand drawing, and text. The more advanced features include pointers, which allow users to indicate particular features of the picture without altering it (much as we would otherwise point a finger) and highlighters, which permit direct markup of the whiteboard. Some whiteboard applications also support multiple pages, which enable users to keep a series of whiteboard drawings close at hand, and screen captures, in which all or part of the screen can be copied onto the system clipboard for use elsewhere.

Text chat is cropping up more and more frequently on the Internet, as it seems that every popular web site has some form of chat room available for discussion of a variety of topics. We’ve even discussed text-based chat in this space before, when we talked about Internet Relay Chat (Craiger & Weiss, 1996). For the uninitiated, text chat requires you to type your commentary instead of speaking it. One can direct one’s messages toward individuals exclusively or to the group as a whole. The contents of the entire public discussion are maintained for viewing at any point while the text chat window is open, and may be easily saved for later viewing offline.

By now, most e-mail users are familiar with attachments, which allow us to include computer files with our messages. The file transfer facility in most videoconferencing packages is somewhat more direct. Typically, you select the files you wish to send out from your local machine, you designate the meeting members to receive the files, and click on a button to send the files along. This is an especially handy feature when meeting members collaborate on a file stored on one member’s machine. Within moments, everyone can have a copy for themselves.

We all remember learning about how Charles Darwin’s trip to the Galapagos Islands turned up a variety of similar species living on each island, each possessed of its own strengths and food supply. VMC software is similar; most videoconferencing packages offer a set of common features, but differ in their versatility and ease-of-use. This section describes the strengths and weaknesses of several of the most readily-available videoconferencing packages.

The products we’ve seen range widely in price and features. However, unlike many software situations in which inexpensive software tends to underwhelm, the match of price and performance is frequently very loose. As we’ll see, depending on your application, you can get quite a lot of functionality for free. Please note as we start out that the opinions expressed here are those of the authors based on our own experiences with the software, and in no way represent the opinions of the TIP editors, or of SIOP as an organization. In addition, the pace of change in the software world is such that any of the limitations we discuss here may no longer even apply by the time you read this. With these disclaimers aside, let’s move along and look at some of the tools.

NetMeeting is the magic mix of free and powerful software. With NetMeeting, you get live videoconferencing and all of the other tools. Many other VMC packages include NetMeeting to augment their feature set. We tend to use it as a standard by which we judge the other software, so we’ll dedicate some extra space to describing it here.

In terms of functionality, NetMeeting has almost everything you could want. You can enjoy live video and audio with another user, share applications, use a common whiteboard, chat via text, and transfer files. Each of these functions is feature-rich. You can do some fine-tuning of the audio and video to address limitations in the speed of your connection to the Internet. Slow connections (e.g., by 28.8 modem) will result in fuzzier video and less consistent sound. In fact, it’s really better to switch off the video with slower connections. The whiteboard features multiple pages and has every manner of drawing tool and highlighting feature imaginable. It even allows users to choose different-colored highlighting "pens" so that their markings are more identifiable. The text chat and file transfer are simple, but effective. These functions are easily found in other Internet applications, most notably on the Web, and are probably seen as user conveniences rather than core components. The only real functional limitation is that you can only share audio and video with one other person at a time, no matter how many people are in the meeting (although you can switch between participants within the NetMeeting connection). There are rumors, however, that Microsoft is working on multi-point communications for a future version.

Ease-of-use is probably the most important element after simple functionality. NetMeeting is mostly excellent once you’re in a call. However, getting to that point can take some work. Calling others appears to be meant to rely on directory servers, which are lists of people who are currently running the program. We tend to avoid directory servers because they can be unreliable and less than a professional place to hang out. Instead, we call directly to the specific Internet address of the person with whom we wish to speak. The IP address, as it’s called, is a series of four sets of digits separated by periods. For example, the IP address of one common computer we use for NetMeeting is 137.48.28.184 . If you know the other person’s IP address, you’re all set. However, it is our experience that not many people know or have easy access to their IP addresses. We actually know our own IP addresses by heart, but that information is probably crowding more important information out of our memories. We’d hate to think that we’ll be spending our dotage telling our grandchildren stories about our IP addresses.

Conference comes as part of the Netscape Communicator package, which can be obtained free from Netscape’s website. Technically, Conference is not VMC because it does not support video. However, because it does share a number of functions common to truly-VMC systems, and the fact that it’s bundled with the most popular Internet browser, we are including a description of it here.

Just as Microsoft had to play a quick game of catch-up with web clients, Netscape is coming from behind with its videoconferencing software, and it shows. Conference is currently set up exclusively for two-person meetings and offers only voice chat, which we found choppy and unclear even using the LAN connection between our offices. In contrast, NetMeeting provided us with good-quality communication across the LAN, and included video as lagniappe. In general, Conference seems more like a beta-test of a work in progress than a final product. That said, the program does have a few very good ideas. The meeting tools are all laid out on a toolbar, which is better than setting them in menus. Conference has a collaborative browsing feature which allows both members of the meeting to surf the Web together, although it has no other way to share applications. Collaborative web surfing can be done in NetMeeting as well, through application sharing, but requires somewhat more effort to get going. In general, Conference shows promise, and we believe that it will be a contender once it has features and refinement comparable to its competition.

CU-SeeMe was originally developed at Cornell University (the CU in CU-SeeMe) and licensed to White Pine software which sells its own version commercially. The major benefit of CU-SeeMe is that it permits video of multiple users at the same time. This way, you can observe your colleagues in San Antonio, Texas, and Whitefish, Montana, simultaneously during your call. Although picture quality is good, the frame update is slow, making it less of a real value-added feature. In terms of features, CU-SeeMe lacks application sharing and file transfer, but has the other main tools. Our own experience with CU-SeeMe didn’t last long because we preferred NetMeeting. However, if you wish to hold face-to-face meetings with several other people, CU-SeeMe is the only software to offer the capability of looking them all in the eye at the same time.

The VMC industry has surged, with a number of companies offering solutions with varying prices and features. The VDOPhone and Creative Labs Video Webphone are simply for audio and video exchange with one other person. More thorough packages are offered by Databeam (which contributed some software to NetMeeting), 3Com, Intel, and PictureTel. Their websites include detailed information for those who are interested.

As the pace of development increases, in terms of hardware, software and supporting infrastructure (e.g., Internet II, faster protocols such as asynchronous digital subscriber lines [ADSL]), VMC will become more and more visible, popular, and perhaps vital, as a means of enhancing and supporting business communication. Two years ago, we described Internet telephony in this space and suggested that it offered a lot of promise. The software we’ve reviewed here hints strongly that this promise may be fulfilled in the near future. Just remember, a little over 3 years ago, not many people were aware of the World Wide Web, nor was it used much for practical application, and look at it now! We fully expect videoconferencing to follow the same path and hope to report soon on the improvements only now on the horizon.

Anderson, A. H., O’Malley, C., Doherty-Sneddon, G., Langton, S., Newlands, A., Mullin, J., Fleming, A. M., & Van der Velden, J. (1997). The impact of VMC on collaborative problem solving: An analysis of task performance, communicative process, and user satisfaction. In K Finn, A. Sellen, and S. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-Mediated Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Craiger, J. P. (1997, January). Technology, organizations, and work in the 20^th century. TIP, 34(3), 89–96.

Craiger, J. P., & Weiss, R. J. (1996, April). Traveling in Cyberspace: Internet tools and services. TIP, 33(4), 13–19.

Creighton, J. L., & Adams, J. W. R. (1998). Cybermeeting. New York: American Management System.

Diamond, L., & Roberts, S. (1996). Effective Videoconferencing. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.

Lauriston, R. What’s wrong with this picture? (August, 1998). PC World. 171–182.

Microsoft NetMeeting 2.1 Guide. (1998). Redmond, WA: Microsoft Co.

Moore, G. (1997). Sharing faces, places, and spaces: The Ontario Telepresence Project field studies. In K. Finn, A. Sellen, and S. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-Mediated Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

O’Conaill, B., & Whittaker, S. Characterizing, predicting, and measuring video-mediated communication: A conversational approach. (1997). In K. Finn, A. Sellen, and S. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-Mediated Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Telecommuting trend gets serious. (1998, June 29). PC Week, 100.