Today I tried to play back the recording of last month’s DigLife session. I got the error message
> Play this recording using Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome
I was using Firefox- in IOS, on the iPad.
Sadly Safari is not supported for watching the recordings in the browser. Because of the restrictions on iOS all browser on iOS/iPadOS have to use the Safari browser engine. So even if you use Firefox for iOS you are essentially using Safari. You got to use a desktop browser I fear (or download the recording).
1 Like
Maybe you have better luck than me but I have never had much success asking users to update their web browsers. I know several OSX users in particular who close the Apple software updater as a reflex because they’ve had too many bad experiences with it breaking things or filling up all their disk space.
Psychologically “install this small app” seems a lot easier. I agree it’s a worse technical solution though.
Friends of mine observed that it was a little weird to see your own webcam reverse mirrored in our meetings. When you look in a mirror, well you see yourself mirrored, so that’s the intuitive user experience, like how we know ourselves, right? You wouldn’t expect to see yourself like others do.
While it didn’t strike me as a terrible thing, I just found this option in the BBB config parameters:
userdata-bbb_mirror_own_webcam= If set to true, the client will see a mirrored version of their webcam. Doesn’t affect the incoming video stream for other users.
Could we set it to true ?
1 Like
I have had that experience and several people have commented on it too. YES, can we change the BBB config parameters as Wouter suggests.
And looking at the table, perhaps we can explore and discuss some of the other parameters, like always getting the echo test.
1 Like
yeap, there are some interesting options that we need to reflect on. The echo test, might be a useful feature so people don’t need to test their audio levels once they’re in the meet - at least that’s what I suspect that feat is for. tech people should confirm though.
What about the first pop up question when joining a room: “Want to join with microphone or Listen-only?”
That’s a redundant question for a very large part of our sessions and user community, and does a lot of harm, especially to people new to BBB choosing the right option and then find out that it’s in fact wrong, as they do want to say a few words, forgive the language joke 
userdata-bbb_listen_only_mode= If set to false, the user will not be able to join the audio part of the meeting without a microphone (disables listen-only mode)
-> why not choose false here?
1 Like
+1
Someone I know who runs lots of events said this about BBB:
Too many foibles to mention. Not least the endless echo tests…
I’d also really really like the option to not have to load a presentation all the time. That’s my personal least favourite thing. Is that also one of the parameters we can change? I never want a presentation to show. Unless I specifically do. But having to have one by default seems like madness to me! 
+1
The less clicks the better!
Also, I don’t think I’m supposed to be able to record my meeting but when someone Jon’s they have to agree to be recorded which is yet more friction and superfluous clicks
(and actually it seems I can record, but it only seems to capture the useless presentation that I’m never using and not the webcams)
maybe we can do a very lightweight default presentation (in SVG, lighter than PDF), and for the rest every room owner can upload a different default presentation, of course.
1 Like
that’s a room option: by default rooms are non-recordable, unless you switch them to recordable and then it has to ask for consent.
1 Like
Sure, but the level of membership I’m on doesn’t (or isn’t meant to) include recordings. I guess I can do them just because so far there isn’t actually any code to enforce that? Oh, actually I just realised that there is currently no mention of recordings in any of the plans - so perhaps the current state of play is that all plans come with recordings? (I just went to see what meet.coop - The Online Meeting Cooperative currently says but the wiki doesn’t appear to exist anymore - is that by design?)
If recordings were actually of all the webcams plus audio (like Zoom recordings are) instead of just the presentation and audio that’d be great… But from things I’ve read previously on here perhaps the other recordings are there too but not accessible via the Greenlight interface?
There really ought to be an option for the default to be no presentation at all. I think in the vast majority of cases users do not want some random default presentation to be displayed. It confusing and leads to yet more clicks.
1 Like
Yep. I vote for the fewest number of clicks required to get a clean, Zoom-like gallery interface, for the casual participant in a meet.coop room.
BBB was designed for classroom teaching, but that’s not our core use-case.
1 Like
Josef, you’re right, months ago the use of the wiki was dropped in favour of storing operational documents at the NextCloud, and moving public facing stuff either to the forum or the website. All wiki documents are stored for reuse. This has been discussed at several All Hands meetings but I’m sorry that in the forum itself it might not have gotten that much attention. (I must say I am a fan of using wikis, but many thought the current setup more practical)
1 Like
Likewise . . I would like to see a wiki that does the job well. A forum can’t match a wiki for archive or FAQ purposes (different roles in the basic ‘trinity’ of collaboration tools: synchronous chat is the 3rd role). But I don’t feel our old one did work well, and something more like a website is better.
One of my best hunches right now is the Guerilla Media and DisCO wikis, built on Mediawiki and Tweeki, which have a very website-ish skin. But, one layer down, these offer readers just a Category dump, which isn’t really a helpful navigation strategy, I find.
Something more hand-made is called for, categorisation isn’t up to the task? I dunno how to solve this one, without risking too much labour input, and without week-on-week webdesign becoming a bottleneck. Thoughts?
I think this is a very useful conversation. Is there someplace where there could be decisions made about this? What should be the default setup of the BBB offered by Meet.coop? What should we leave to each user as a customisable option? Is such decisions in the province of the Tech Circle? Or is there some place where such decisions are recorded for Meet.coop?
1 Like
The virtues of wiki vs website, etc, are part of the toolstack discussion that will open up in the Community programme. When that commences, which will likely be a few weeks yet. But of course, that doesn’t answer the question as regards meet.coop internal provision for its own work processes. Things might work the other way round. But I feel questions of this kind should come up early in the Community programme schedule?
Hi,
Has there been any discussions about this? I would really like to get rid of the echo test settings, and I’m getting that response from others in my team too. And same thing with the mirror setting.
I think the settings that you’re discussing here would make sense: https://forum.meet.coop/t/set-up-of-meet-citiesforchange-org/607
@petter seems to be asking about the Amsterdam Cities for Change special configuration aka simplification of the Ui Set up of meet.citiesforchange.org @dvd @wouter is there any consensus that this switcharound would be acceptable as default? Or is some of this controversial?
In that thread I said I’d be happy to have presentation OFF as a default, for example.
If we switch, we need to fully announce the change B4 it happens. Is it possible to post an alert inside BBB? And/or invite objections b4 a specified date?
For clarity, should this element of this current very mixed thread move over to that one: Set up of meet.citiesforchange.org