New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Voice/Video Conference Wishlist #3025

Open
uhoreg opened this Issue Jan 23, 2017 · 23 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@uhoreg
Member

uhoreg commented Jan 23, 2017

Here are a bunch of things that I would like to see support for in conferencing, in order to support different uses.

  • ability to join a conference as a passive participant (not sending any voice or video -- is this already possible?)
  • require a certain power level to speak (e.g. for online presentations/lectures, where generally only the presenter speaks, but can also allow others to speak when needed, such as for asking questions)
  • require a certain power level to send in video
  • have an indicator for who is speaking (e.g. having a "foo is speaking" line in the status bar, similar to the typing indicator)
  • allow moderators to mute people (telling a user's client to mute itself -- this is mainly intended as a convenience function (e.g. person has stepped away from their device and a baby starts crying loudly) and can be overridden by the user)
  • persistent conferences (conferences that don't disappear when the last person leaves)
  • require a certain power level to start a conference
  • ability to upload a pdf/odp/ppt/etc. and use it as your "video" e.g. for presenting slides in online presentations (the same effect could be obtained by screen-sharing a viewer program, but by uploading a file and signalling to clients which slide to view, you would get both better quality and lower bandwidth usage)
  • option to auto-enter a voice/video conference (as a listener or as a participant) when clicking on a room (so you don't have to click the voice or video button to join)

Additional suggestions from the comments below:

  • ability to invite others by sending them a link without requiring a Matrix account (similar to meet.jit.si or appear.in)
  • allow controlling the volume of each speaker
  • push-to-talk
  • send-to-voice-detection
  • adaptive bandwidth management
  • ability to send multiple streams from a single client (e.g. screen sharing and webcam)
@richvdh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@richvdh

richvdh Jan 23, 2017

Member

See also #1869

Member

richvdh commented Jan 23, 2017

See also #1869

@MightyCreak

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MightyCreak

MightyCreak Jan 26, 2017

I would add screen-sharing. This is mainly why we are still using Skype at work (there might be other solutions, but that is not the question). Surprisingly, Slack doesn't have that yet either. Screen-sharing is extremely useful: for peer-reviewing, for explaining something that is easier to explain when seen, etc...

MightyCreak commented Jan 26, 2017

I would add screen-sharing. This is mainly why we are still using Skype at work (there might be other solutions, but that is not the question). Surprisingly, Slack doesn't have that yet either. Screen-sharing is extremely useful: for peer-reviewing, for explaining something that is easier to explain when seen, etc...

@uhoreg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@uhoreg

uhoreg Jan 26, 2017

Member

@MightyCreak screen-sharing already exists, although it is hidden (Shift-click on the video call button), and it requires special things to be done for the browser to allow it (setting a config option in Firefox (#1312) and either a command-line argument or a custom extension (#238) for Chrome). However, it should just work in the desktop version.

Member

uhoreg commented Jan 26, 2017

@MightyCreak screen-sharing already exists, although it is hidden (Shift-click on the video call button), and it requires special things to be done for the browser to allow it (setting a config option in Firefox (#1312) and either a command-line argument or a custom extension (#238) for Chrome). However, it should just work in the desktop version.

@gerg5c42g542g2c54g52c

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gerg5c42g542g2c54g52c

gerg5c42g542g2c54g52c Feb 6, 2017

My wishlist:
I'd like to be able to create a conference (messages and voice) that I could send to people, that wouldn't require creating an account. Or in other words, the same thing that Discord has, but free software and perhaps also E2E.

gerg5c42g542g2c54g52c commented Feb 6, 2017

My wishlist:
I'd like to be able to create a conference (messages and voice) that I could send to people, that wouldn't require creating an account. Or in other words, the same thing that Discord has, but free software and perhaps also E2E.

@ara4n

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ara4n

ara4n Feb 18, 2017

Member

These are all excellent wishes. Right now we're focused on making it work at all(!), and have just kicked off work on a new conferencing server which can hopefully evolve in this direction. It's based on our old pre-Matrix proprietary codebase, but we're assuming we'll FOSS it if it works out okay. @superdump has the conn here :)

Member

ara4n commented Feb 18, 2017

These are all excellent wishes. Right now we're focused on making it work at all(!), and have just kicked off work on a new conferencing server which can hopefully evolve in this direction. It's based on our old pre-Matrix proprietary codebase, but we're assuming we'll FOSS it if it works out okay. @superdump has the conn here :)

@PureTryOut

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@PureTryOut

PureTryOut Mar 20, 2017

Contributor

It would also be nice to be able to control volume per person (user setting). From what I heard right now all streams are mixed into 1 by the homeserver, so I guess that new conferencing server could help in this.

And of course simple things like push to talk and send-on-voice-detection (although I'm not sure if the latter is possible within a web-app).

Contributor

PureTryOut commented Mar 20, 2017

It would also be nice to be able to control volume per person (user setting). From what I heard right now all streams are mixed into 1 by the homeserver, so I guess that new conferencing server could help in this.

And of course simple things like push to talk and send-on-voice-detection (although I'm not sure if the latter is possible within a web-app).

@schnuffle

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@schnuffle

schnuffle Apr 21, 2017

One thing that IMHO is quite important is adaptive bandwidth management. What I mean with that is that the Voice/Video part should be able to adapt to bandwidth restrictions ( static or dynamic ) by scaling the codec bandwidth used to encode the data.

schnuffle commented Apr 21, 2017

One thing that IMHO is quite important is adaptive bandwidth management. What I mean with that is that the Voice/Video part should be able to adapt to bandwidth restrictions ( static or dynamic ) by scaling the codec bandwidth used to encode the data.

@albuic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@albuic

albuic May 4, 2017

Ability to share screen and video at the same time

albuic commented May 4, 2017

Ability to share screen and video at the same time

@heyakyra

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@heyakyra

heyakyra Sep 25, 2017

I'd really like to see jitsi/jitsi-meet#688 and jitsi/jitsi-meet#30 but AIUI they would have to be handled upstream

Should this and #1869 be merged into #1965?

heyakyra commented Sep 25, 2017

I'd really like to see jitsi/jitsi-meet#688 and jitsi/jitsi-meet#30 but AIUI they would have to be handled upstream

Should this and #1869 be merged into #1965?

@uhoreg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@uhoreg

uhoreg Sep 25, 2017

Member

IMHO, this, #1869, and #1965 have slightly different scopes. #1965 seems to be more about 1:1 calls, #1869 seems to be mostly about improving quality, while this issue is more of a long-term wishlist.

Member

uhoreg commented Sep 25, 2017

IMHO, this, #1869, and #1965 have slightly different scopes. #1965 seems to be more about 1:1 calls, #1869 seems to be mostly about improving quality, while this issue is more of a long-term wishlist.

@heyakyra

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@heyakyra

heyakyra Sep 25, 2017

@uhoreg ah, that makes sense. has the new Jitsi integration taken care of any of the items listed in these three issues?

heyakyra commented Sep 25, 2017

@uhoreg ah, that makes sense. has the new Jitsi integration taken care of any of the items listed in these three issues?

@uhoreg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@uhoreg

uhoreg Sep 25, 2017

Member

I haven't tried the Jitsi integration, so I don't know, but looking over this list, it doesn't look like much has been fixed, aside from "ability to invite others by sending them a link without requiring a Matrix account (similar to meet.jit.si or appear.in)" (though I don't know how discoverable the link is, so it might be better to leave that open), and maybe "adaptive bandwidth management", if Jitsi does that. @superdump would probably know better, especially regarding whether any of the issues from #1869 are fixed.

Member

uhoreg commented Sep 25, 2017

I haven't tried the Jitsi integration, so I don't know, but looking over this list, it doesn't look like much has been fixed, aside from "ability to invite others by sending them a link without requiring a Matrix account (similar to meet.jit.si or appear.in)" (though I don't know how discoverable the link is, so it might be better to leave that open), and maybe "adaptive bandwidth management", if Jitsi does that. @superdump would probably know better, especially regarding whether any of the issues from #1869 are fixed.

@BloodyIron

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BloodyIron

BloodyIron Apr 13, 2018

So how soon before we can get push to talk or other stuff hammered out? Last update was Sept of last year (2017).

BloodyIron commented Apr 13, 2018

So how soon before we can get push to talk or other stuff hammered out? Last update was Sept of last year (2017).

@BloodyIron

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BloodyIron

BloodyIron Apr 13, 2018

Not sure how I unassigned @superdump ?_?

BloodyIron commented Apr 13, 2018

Not sure how I unassigned @superdump ?_?

@ara4n

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ara4n

ara4n Apr 13, 2018

Member

i think that's a bug in github. @superdump is sadly no longer part of the matrix core team, and GH presumably only just noticed and unassigned. right now we're not working on new features but prioritising getting the current ones polished and stable to a 1.0 release.

Member

ara4n commented Apr 13, 2018

i think that's a bug in github. @superdump is sadly no longer part of the matrix core team, and GH presumably only just noticed and unassigned. right now we're not working on new features but prioritising getting the current ones polished and stable to a 1.0 release.

@BloodyIron

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BloodyIron

BloodyIron Apr 13, 2018

@ara4n is there a target timeline for 1.0 release? PTT is pretty paramount for a lot of riot usage that I and others are looking to do.

BloodyIron commented Apr 13, 2018

@ara4n is there a target timeline for 1.0 release? PTT is pretty paramount for a lot of riot usage that I and others are looking to do.

@heyakyra

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@heyakyra

heyakyra Apr 14, 2018

This looks interesting (video transport architecture that outperforms WebRTC, Skype, FaceTime, Hangouts, etc), albeit probably something that would need to be done upstream: https://snr.stanford.edu/salsify/

I filed an issue against Jitsi-Meet to look into it: jitsi/jitsi-meet#2819

heyakyra commented Apr 14, 2018

This looks interesting (video transport architecture that outperforms WebRTC, Skype, FaceTime, Hangouts, etc), albeit probably something that would need to be done upstream: https://snr.stanford.edu/salsify/

I filed an issue against Jitsi-Meet to look into it: jitsi/jitsi-meet#2819

@MurzNN

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MurzNN

MurzNN May 8, 2018

Contributor

Screen Sharing feature implemented more that year ago, but why it still hidden via Shift+click hack?
Will be good to merge two buttons (Voice call, Video call) into one button, and create the popup menu with available modes: Audio call, Video call, Screen share.

Contributor

MurzNN commented May 8, 2018

Screen Sharing feature implemented more that year ago, but why it still hidden via Shift+click hack?
Will be good to merge two buttons (Voice call, Video call) into one button, and create the popup menu with available modes: Audio call, Video call, Screen share.

@PureTryOut

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@PureTryOut

PureTryOut May 8, 2018

Contributor

Well, I believe the default VoIP and video call systems are to be replaced by Jitsi, which already has screen sharing working as well. Wouldn't make sense imo to spend effort on the old system if it's going to be replaced (and already is on mobile) anyway.

Contributor

PureTryOut commented May 8, 2018

Well, I believe the default VoIP and video call systems are to be replaced by Jitsi, which already has screen sharing working as well. Wouldn't make sense imo to spend effort on the old system if it's going to be replaced (and already is on mobile) anyway.

@BloodyIron

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BloodyIron

BloodyIron May 8, 2018

Wait, it's a hidden feature? WUT? Is the current screen sharing Jitsi or Freeswitch, or what?

BloodyIron commented May 8, 2018

Wait, it's a hidden feature? WUT? Is the current screen sharing Jitsi or Freeswitch, or what?

@MurzNN

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MurzNN

MurzNN May 8, 2018

Contributor

Jitsi widget is too hard to find for regular users, so all use "Video call" button near to file upload. And using it there are no way to switch between camera & screen sharing, we can only initiate screen sharing call via shift+click, but nowhere is written about this in Riot interface.
So hope that in near future this button in Riot will be binded to Jitsi widget.

Contributor

MurzNN commented May 8, 2018

Jitsi widget is too hard to find for regular users, so all use "Video call" button near to file upload. And using it there are no way to switch between camera & screen sharing, we can only initiate screen sharing call via shift+click, but nowhere is written about this in Riot interface.
So hope that in near future this button in Riot will be binded to Jitsi widget.

@syhe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@syhe

syhe May 8, 2018

Does moving to Jitsi mean that for private, isolated (not federated, not relying on any external infrastructure) homeservers you need to setup an integration server (or possibly use vector.im) to get screen sharing to work?

syhe commented May 8, 2018

Does moving to Jitsi mean that for private, isolated (not federated, not relying on any external infrastructure) homeservers you need to setup an integration server (or possibly use vector.im) to get screen sharing to work?

@akontsevich

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@akontsevich

akontsevich May 8, 2018

but why it still hidden via Shift+click hack?

Definitely: why?! Where to Shift-click to activate it? Ha, found: Shift-click on camera call.

akontsevich commented May 8, 2018

but why it still hidden via Shift+click hack?

Definitely: why?! Where to Shift-click to activate it? Ha, found: Shift-click on camera call.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment