It comes as no surprise to many, who predicted that video conferencing would gain over traditional voice calling, that Web-based real time communications (WebRTC) started growing in earnest. But with the rise of video conferencing users, a new problem is also growing to match the use: the differences of user experiences and software clients that aren't always compatible. This may well serve to sour a lot of users on the idea of video conferencing, but there are steps that can be taken to preserve the user experience and keep users coming back for more.
The idea of preserving the user experience has a lot of possibilities in terms of how to address the issue. A growing variety of vendors of video solutions is leading to plenty of calls – especially from the vendors – to just let the market decide, offering up all the video client apps on users' devices then letting the users decide which ones are best for the situation. Eventually, the users settle on a couple of main go-to apps, the rest die on the vine, and compatibility becomes little problem. IT departments and the like are often found agreeing to protect their metaphorical turf and allow them to continue to be the ones making decisions.
Yet at the same time, it's easy to see how, especially in the early going, all those options can complicate matters and make costs soar in response. For instance, consider the issue of providing video conferencing in a business setting. Typically, there are two ways to go: using personal devices to make the necessary connections and process the video, or using conference room video systems to handle the job.
It's clear that there is value to be had in each scenario, and as such, plenty of clients to handle such work. Some might even consider separation for the two philosophies: mobile workers, like sales reps and the like, would use personal device video, while more office-bound workers like accountants might use conference room video instead.
But what happens when a user is both mobile and office-bound? Using WebRTC here is likely to help, as the user experience for both inside and outside office users would be compatible, as both are working off a browser. But since WebRTC is still gaining in terms of what browsers will accommodate it, considering other methods – especially in the short term – may prove valuable as well.
Then there is the issue of interacting by video outside of the enterprise. Sales reps need to contact potential and current customers. Buyers need to talk to suppliers. But one set of communications tools may not be immediately compatible with another company's set, so what can be done? There are several options here: WebRTC is offering up a major one in the form of a conferencing tool that can work from a Web browser, improving the chances that everyone's systems are compatible. Services like BlueJeans, Vidyo and several others help bring the user experiences together even with different video conferencing brands at work.
The critical point here is that video conferencing is rapidly gaining as a communications medium. But with this rapid gain come a lot of different tools, not all of which are immediately compatible. WebRTC is going to be a major driver of video conferencing, but until WebRTC reaches the level of ubiquity it truly aspires to, the issue of early-stage conferencing compatibility is still going to be important to the user experience.
Edited by
Alisen Downey
