Hey all, my name is Benjamin Stephen Finkle but most call me Ben. I was born and raised outside of
The Internet-related phenomenon I’m most intrigued by is videoconferencing. This topic fascinates me most probably because I am currently involved in a long distance relationship. Personally it seems that videoconferencing helps to eliminate the distance by being able to see the face of the person you’re talking to. However, as fast as instant messaging caught on, I believe that videoconferencing has taken a much longer time to gain traction in the mainstream. I’m curious as to why this has occurred, and what social implications there would be if videoconferencing were to reach a critical mass and become as popular as instant messenger or Facebook.
This phenomenon takes place in the “interactive video and voice” arena, which has qualities of “synchronous chats” as well. Videoconferencing is similar to a synchronous chat in that it allows people to engage in real-time conversation with others, yet differs in that it adds a video and voice aspect to the chat. While videoconferencing was just at its beginnings in 1999 when Patricia Wallace published her book “The Psychology of the Internet”, her descriptions fit the mold of the technology available today. I can’t wait for advances in bandwidth and camera quality so that hopefully soon videoconferencing will be as easily available as instant messaging.
2 comments:
Hey Ben,
I've also wondered why videoconferencing never really took off. It seems to simulate real life better than any other medium... Who doesn't want that? However, I think most people view it as a hassle. I actually had a conversation with my dad about this topic over the summer. Someone he knows recently bought a webcam to keep in touch with their grandkids. My dad didn't understand why. While he would rather talk to me in person than online, he saw no added benefit of watching me talk to him on a computer. While I have a better appreciation for the potential usefulness of videoconferencing, I think there must be something satisfying about face-to-face interactions that can’t be harnessed even when visual and auditory input are available. I think this would be really interesting to explore and I'm glad you wrote about it!
Ben, I think that the main difference between Instant Messaging and Video-conferencing is the fact that the other person can see you. One reason I like instant messaging it that I can do it anytime of the day, whether right after rolling out of bed or after going to the gym. No one can see me so I can dress and look however I want. If I were to video-conference with all my friends, I would have to take a shower, pick out an outfit, etc.
Another problem with videoconferencing is that there is a delay. As much as people want it to be in “real time”, it just isn't. The slight delay can become aggravating when the voice doesn't match up to the movements onscreen. I believe that if the technology improved than it would become more popular. However I don't think it will become as prevalent as AIM because it isn't as convenient.
Post a Comment