AGOCG logo
Graphics Multimedia VR Visualization Contents
Training Reports Workshops Briefings Index
This report is also available as an Acrobat file.
Back Next Contents
Evaluation of the Suitability of Distributed Interactive Videoconferencing for use in Higher Education

APPENDIX 6- Untreated data from participant questionnaires

Was the audio understandable?

Yes (Berlin) (Berlin) (Berlin) (Berlin) (B4, Berlin) (C4, Madrid) (B2, Madrid) (B2, Madrid) (A4, Madrid) (A4, Madrid) (Aveiro) (C1, Aveiro) (B2, Aveiro) (B2, Madrid) (B4, Aveiro) (B4, Aveiro) (B4, Aveiro) (B2, Aveiro)
No (A5, Madrid) (A4, Aveiro)
Mostly, with occasional breakdowns (B4, Berlin)
At times it was very good, and at other times just OK (B4, Berlin)
Partially, most of the time (B4, Berlin)
Yes- mostly (Berlin) (B2, Aveiro)
During the lectures-no, with the exception of the beginning and end of lectures (Berlin)
Sometimes, yes, but sometimes it was not understandable (B4, Berlin)
Depends on the sites involved (C5, Madrid)
Not really (C4, Madrid)
Depends on the individual site (C4, Madrid)
Improving with the event, with the exception of Napoli (C4, Madrid)
Yes, because it was here in Madrid (B2, Madrid)
There were a few cuts, but in general it was OK (B2, Madrid)
It was intelligible (A4, Madrid)
Sometimes it was hard to understand (A4, Madrid)
Generally, yes (A5, Madrid)
In general, yes; it only failed on one occasion (A5, Madrid)
Good in general (B4, Madrid) (B4, Aveiro)
Yes, most of the time at least (B4, Aveiro)
Most of the time, yes, but required considerable effort on my part (B4, Aveiro)
Sometimes it was difficult, interrupted at certain points (A4, Belgacom)
Had more problems with this session than other sessions, could have been due to 'Spanish' English (A5, Belgacom)
Sound and images were good; good synchronisation (B2, Belgacom)

Problems experienced with audio/video

Mostly audio was understandable, although parts from Madrid were hard to understand due to feedback and echo. Video was appropriate, but not impressive (C7, Berlin)
Synchronisation between audio and video could have been better sometimes (Berlin)
Video and audio did not seem to be in synchronisation. Sometimes the audio quality was bad due to the loss of audio packets (especially from Naples) (Berlin)
There were interruptions in audio transmission, but in general it was OK (Berlin)
Occasionally the frame is quite low, otherwise it's OK (B4, Berlin)
The question and answer sessions were not really understandable (B4, Berlin)
The audio was not perfect (B4, Berlin)
Audio-video co-ordination is not good. There were too few frames per second; I think it would be better for human perception if there was some trade-off between frame-rate, resolution and colours (B4, Berlin)
Problems with echo. Lack of synchronisation between video and audio (C5, Madrid)
Audio from Naples and Aveiro was not understandable; there was some echo when two people were talking simultaneously (C4, Madrid)
Yes, there were some problems when the audio-video was coming from Naples (C4, Madrid)
Yes the audio was cut at one point. The video is not of an acceptable quality to the user. Special emphasis should be placed on solving the audio-video synchronisation (C4, Madrid)
There was a high volume level today (B2, Madrid)
There was some echo (B2, Madrid)
Had problems with echo and the volume level (B2, Madrid)
Yes sometimes the network doesn't work (B2, Madrid)
Audio could be improved by reducing echo (B2, Madrid)
Echo in the Napoli connection, low volume level (B2, Madrid)
Experienced some problems with the echo (A4, Madrid)
There were problems with echo and volume level, also some cuts in transmission (A4, Madrid)
Lack of synchronisation between audio and video (A4, Madrid)
There were a few problems with echo (A4, Madrid)
Sometimes there is some echo (A4, Madrid)
There was feedback and echo (A5, Madrid)
There were some problems like echo, lack of sound (A5, Madrid)
There were some echo problems (A5, Madrid)
I expected better quality (A5, Madrid)
There were some faults, but it's an experiment (B4, Madrid)
Sometimes, the video disappeared, the quality was OK (B2, Aveiro)
Yes, with the volume level and perception of audio (B4, Aveiro)
I don't recall feedback or echo, but the volume level and quality were not great all of the time. Only had problems with the small black squares (where there should have been white, I think) (B4, Aveiro)
Volume level and quality were not great all of the time (B4, Aveiro)
Noise (A4, Aveiro)
It was very quiet (A4, Aveiro)
There were breaks, echo and volume (B4, Aveiro)
There were some jumps, the session was cut before the end (C1, Aveiro)
It was understandable, but not good (B2, Aveiro)
Had the impression that the audio suddenly got better at one point, no major problems (A5, Belgacom)

Was the video appropriate for this presentation?

Yes (C7, Berlin) (C7, Berlin) (B4, Berlin) (A5, Madrid) (Berlin) (B4, Berlin) (B4, Berlin) (C5, Madrid) (C4, Madrid) (C4, Madrid) (C4, Madrid) (B2, Madrid) (B2, Madrid) (B2, Madrid) (A4, Madrid) (A4, Madrid) (A4, Madrid) (B4, Madrid) (B4, Madrid) (C1, Aveiro) (B4, Aveiro) (B4, Aveiro) (A4, Aveiro)
Most of the time (Berlin)
Size of picture was a bit too small, quality good enough as it is (Berlin)
Probably (images were too small) (Berlin)
It could be better, it was a little monotonous (B2, Madrid)
Yes, enough quality (A4, Madrid)
Good presentation, medium quality (A5, Madrid)
More or less (A5, Madrid)
This presentation in particular, as with the majority of the others had a very good video quality (B2, Madrid)
Reasonable (B4, Aveiro)
Not perfectly; general unbalanced framing (B3, Aveiro)
Not appropriate because it should have been more interactive (B2, Aveiro)

Expectations in terms of audio/video quality

More than I got (C7, Berlin)
Was expecting better quality (C7, Berlin)
No fixed expectations (Berlin)
Expected better picture quality (Berlin)
Video should have been of higher frame rate and higher resolution. Audio is OK if stable. I expected TV quality, but, well... (B4, Berlin)
Was expecting better audio (Berlin)
Yes (Berlin)
Thought it would be better than m-bone, but the advantage doesn't seem to be obvious (B4, Berlin)
I have worked with bandwidths of 128 kbps, here the quality is better (C5, Madrid)
Wasn't expecting anything (C4, Madrid)
I expected higher quality audio (C4, Madrid)
Expected better quality (C4, Madrid)
Something better (C4, Madrid)
Was expecting more quality in terms of video because of the promises of ATM technology (B2, Madrid)
Was expecting better quality (B2, Madrid)
The video was slower than what I was expecting, audio about the same as expected (B2, Madrid)
More or less the same quality (B2, Madrid)
Video was poorer than expectations (B2, Madrid)
Was expecting a more continuous transmission (A4, Madrid)
I would expect audio to have been better (A4, Madrid)
No prior expectations (A4, Madrid)
Expected better video quality (A5, Madrid)
I thought the audio and video would be better than they actually were (A5, Madrid)
Was expecting better synchronisation between video and audio (C1, Aveiro)
In comparison with previous experiments, I expected the quality to be worse (B2, Aveiro)
I wasn't expecting that much delay between the video and audio (B4, Aveiro)
The quality of the video-audio fulfilled expectations (B2, Aveiro)
I expected better sound quality and a higher number of video frames per second (B4, Aveiro)
Expectation due to little movement of the speaker, corresponded to my expectations (B3, Aveiro)
Before the Summer School started, I was expecting the quality from what I know of ATM. After the previous sessions, this one came out just like I expected (B4, Aveiro)
I was expecting TV quality from what I know of ATM.
Was expecting not too much of what happened (A4, Aveiro)
Better than yesterday (B4, Aveiro)
Better audio and video quality (B4, Aveiro)
Better synchronisation between video and sound and a better frame rate (B4, Aveiro)
Something nearer to TV quality (B2, Aveiro)
Based on ISDN connectivity- it was approximately the same (A4 Belgacom)
I'm used to videoconferencing on narrowband ISDN (A5, Belgacom)

Was the presentation medium appropriate?

Powerpoint slides were good support for lectures (Berlin)
Slides were appropriate, but sometimes the text was too small (Berlin)
Powerpoint was OK, animation would have been better (Berlin)
Slides were OK, but presenter didn't really use pointer device (B4, Berlin)
Rather restrictive- no animation possible (Berlin)
Powerpoint presentations were not appropriate, they need more co-ordination with the same media (C4, Madrid)
Yes (C4, Madrid)
When a video was played, the window with the speaker in disappeared (B2, Madrid)
Text was too small (B2, Madrid)
The slide quality was deficient (C1, Aveiro)
I guess some lecturers didn't know the basic procedures for putting information onto transparency, and they put too much info down- that was the case with Mr Oodan (B4, Aveiro)
I think that presentation techniques for the sessions should be rethought, and we now have low contact between the speakers and delegates (Aveiro)
Yes, the presentation software was quite appropriate (but I'm sure if it uses Powerpoint because the interface looked like X-Windows) (B4, Aveiro)
Yes, the presentation software was quite appropriate (B4, Aveiro)
There was a lack of animation, would suggest the use of authorware, like Macromind Director (B4, Aveiro)
Slide text was too small (B2, Aveiro)
A lot of people are only convinced if they see real examples, these are good, need more of these (B2, Belgacom)

Comments on screen layout

Bigger speaker windows required (C7, Berlin)
Good (C7, Berlin) (C1, Aveiro)
Quite nice when it worked (Berlin)
The speaker was too small during presentations (Berlin)
OK, during multi-presenter sessions it would be nice to see them all on one screen (B4, Berlin)
Good (B4, Berlin)
Could have used more, and larger images (Berlin)
OK (Berlin)
Quite good (C5, Madrid)
OK (C4, Madrid)
It's good (C4, Madrid) (A5, Madrid)
Would benefit from better quality (C4, Madrid)
I think it's good (C4, Madrid)
Everything is OK (B2, Madrid)
Generally good, but the image of the speaker was very small (B2, Madrid)
Better than yesterday (B2, Madrid)
Illumination could have been better (B2, Madrid)
When the link works it's OK (B4, Madrid)
Good, although the windows are not always aligned and stable (B2, Aveiro)
Reasonable (B3, Aveiro)
Well planned, but the transitions were cumbersome (e.g., the windows kept changing size consecutively for several times until they matched the desirable size (B4, Aveiro)
Audio didn't keep up. Split screen fine. When the speakers image disappeared just like a TV documentary, the image of the speaker should be much larger, suggestion: L-shaped sides (B4, Aveiro)
Mostly good, although Thierry had to move his local monitor about, this should be avoided (A4, Belgacom)
Prefer to have two images only on screen, 3 would be inappropriate, unless you really need them (A5, Belgacom)
If there are 3/4 parties it might be interesting to see all of them, but if there are more sites it would be too easy to overload it (B2, Belgacom)

Question and answer sessions, interactions

Presenter/Speaker interaction could have been more fluent (C7, Berlin)
Presenter/speaker interaction is very difficult between different locations (Berlin)
Not enough presenter/speaker interaction (Berlin)
There was limited time for questions, but that's normal. Sometimes the presenter/speaker interaction was a bit confusing, but in general it was OK (B4, Berlin)
Speaker-presenter, and speaker-questioner interaction was good and well organised (B4, Berlin)
In the interaction involving Madrid presenters- presenter- speaker, the Madrid presenter seems to be unnecessary (Berlin)
Speaker-presenter interaction felt rather contrived (Berlin)
Don Cochrane was excellent (B4, Berlin)
Presenter-speaker interaction was not very good. Speaker-questioner interactions were even worse, not understandable due to data loss/delay (B4, Berlin)
Presenter-speaker interaction was good (B4, Berlin)
Speaker-questioner interaction was quite good (C5, Madrid)
Good presenter-speaker, and speaker-questioner interaction (C4, Madrid)
Good presenter-speaker, and speaker-questioner interaction (C4, Madrid)
Interaction was OK- fairly good (C4, Madrid)
There were some problems of communication with presenter-speaker and speaker-questioner interaction (C4, Madrid)
Presenter-speaker interaction was nice (B2, Madrid)
There were few opportunities to ask questions; interaction between speaker and questioner is fast (B2, Madrid)
Poor presenter-speaker interaction, problems with the co-ordination and organisation. The speaker-questioner interactivity works (B2, Madrid)
Speaker-questioner interaction was well resolved (A4, Madrid)
Liked speaker-questioner interactions (A4, Madrid)
Wasn't well informed about asking questions; speaker-presenter, and speaker-questioner interactions were well synchronised (A5, Madrid)
It depends on the site; the interaction with Belgacom was almost perfect, however the link with Aveiro was pretty bad (A5, Madrid)
Presenter-speaker, and speaker-questioner interactions were really good, and continuous (A5, Madrid)
The presenter-speaker interaction was good enough and improves with experience. There wasn't much interaction between the speakers and questioners (B4, Madrid)
We have to rethink existing presentation techniques (Aveiro)
Limited time for questions (B4, Aveiro)
I had no opportunity for asking questions (B3, Aveiro)
Presenter-speaker interaction wept attention (B3, Aveiro)
I didn't want to ask a question, but someone else here did, and couldn't, due to time restrictions (B4, Aveiro)
Good floor management. Interaction had been rehearsed, audio pretty well tuned. Speaker-questioner interaction was very difficult, late audio (B4, Aveiro)
There were some problems synchronising between sites (C1, Aveiro)
Didn't think there was any interaction in this session (B2, Aveiro)
The presenter-speaker interaction was quite smooth, 2 ppl in Madrid seemed OK, good synchronisation (A5, Belgacom)
The conference needs presenter-speaker interaction, especially if there has been more than one presentation (B2, Belgacom)

Level of participant involvement

Felt part of local audience only (C7, Berlin)
Didn't feel much involved (C7, Berlin)
Yes, felt part of event (Berlin) (Berlin) (B4, Berlin) (B2, Madrid) (A4, Madrid) (A4, Madrid) (A5, Madrid) (A5, Madrid) (C1, Aveiro) (A4, Aveiro) (B4, Aveiro)
Yes and no. Yes I felt that there were other sites involved, but not 20 other sites (Berlin)
Yes, felt part of whole event, but difficult to realise full scope (B4, Aveiro)
Felt part of local audience, a second window for international sites was missing (Berlin)
Felt rather detached, very local impression. No idea of other audience (B4, Berlin)
Didn't really feel part of 'whole' event, only at times, when seeing the windows of other sites on screen (B4, Berlin) So-so (B4, Berlin)
I felt mostly part of the local site only, although I'm aware of the other sites all over the world (B4, Berlin)
Finally you feel part of the entire summer school event (C4, Madrid)
Only feel part of the whole event when the lecture and actuations were dynamic (C4, Madrid)
No sense of unity, felt like the different parts were put together (C4, Madrid)
Felt a little bit part of the whole summer school event (C4, Madrid)
Sometimes felt involved in whole event, especially when there were lots of windows on the screen (B2, Madrid)
Felt involved in something local (B2, Madrid)
Didn't feel fully involved in the whole event, since you lose some human contact between students and lecturers (B2, Madrid)
More or less felt involved in the whole event (A4, Madrid)
I felt part of the whole event, but it is uncomfortable due to the audio quality (A4, Madrid)
Yes, most of all because of the language and the atmosphere (A5, Madrid)
While the presentation techniques do not evolve, following this new technological environments, the integration of everyone in the global whole will be quite difficult (Aveiro)
Most of the time I felt part of 2-3 sites, very few times I felt part of more, and even sometimes I almost fell asleep and wasn't even part of the local audience! I only felt really part of the whole audiences during some of the 'social type' interactions, namely the Mexican wave (B4, Aveiro)
Yes, I felt part of the whole event, and I fell that this is something to promote in the middle of scientific communities (Aveiro) Good involvement (B3, Aveiro)
I think this is the one thing I will remember from this Summer School, that is I really enjoyed feeling a part of a distributed audience (B4, Aveiro)
Felt more local than part of the whole thing (C1, Aveiro)
The presenter always talks to the camera, leaving the audience a little distant. Doesn't allow proximity (B2, Aveiro)
There was nothing indicating that other sites were involved, except when other questions were raised (A4, Belgacom)
Had the impression that it was a remote lecture, but no impression that other sites were involved. It is difficult to manage real-time interactivity (A5, Belgacom)
Not used to concept yet (B2, Belgacom)
Back Next Contents

Graphics     Multimedia      Virtual Environments      Visualisation      Contents