Web Conferencing Team Report - Purdue University · communicate with the University and the OOC on progress on the project ... Some areas of the campus also use Blue Jeans ... OOC

OOC Web Conferencing Team Report

Web Conferencing Task Team Final Report – 1/24/2014


2 | P a g e

Web Conferencing Task Team Final Report – 1/24/2014

Contents Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Recommended Action Plan ....................................................................................................................... 1

Findings ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Team Charge ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Current Landscape .................................................................................................................................... 3

Changing Landscape .................................................................................................................................. 3

Growing need for web conferencing ........................................................................................................ 4

Accessibility ............................................................................................................................................... 4

Gartner & CIC Findings .............................................................................................................................. 4

Cost, Features and Ease of Use Comparison ............................................................................................ 4

Team findings ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Other Product Testers ........................................................................................................................... 6

Adobe Connect v8/v9 ............................................................................................................................... 6

Lync ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

Team members ............................................................................................................................................. 7

Process .......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Develop criteria for evaluating current and/or new services - COMPLETE .............................................. 7

Evaluate products/services and identify those that most closely meet campus needs - COMPLETE ...... 7

Compare products - COMPLETE ................................................................................................................ 8

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................... 9

Currently used products ........................................................................................................................... 9

List of administrative desired features & product questions ................................................................. 11

Copy of survey sent to Purdue faculty and staff ..................................................................................... 12

Results of survey sent to Purdue faculty and staff ................................................................................. 13

Survey Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 40

Implications for pilot: .......................................................................................................................... 42

Ranked features list ................................................................................................................................ 43

Gartner Magic Quadrants ....................................................................................................................... 45

OOC Web Conferencing Team Report – 8/1/2013

Websites reviewed for product comparisons ......................................................................................... 46

CIC Product Use....................................................................................................................................... 47

Demonstration Script .............................................................................................................................. 49

Accessibility review ................................................................................................................................. 50

Team testing results ................................................................................................................................ 51

Cisco WebEx ........................................................................................................................................ 51

Saba ..................................................................................................................................................... 51

Blackboard .......................................................................................................................................... 53

Citrix .................................................................................................................................................... 54

Pilot Testing Results ................................................................................................................................ 55

Participation ........................................................................................................................................ 55

Cisco WebEx ........................................................................................................................................ 55

Saba ..................................................................................................................................................... 57

Collaborate .......................................................................................................................................... 59

Citrix GoToMeeting ............................................................................................................................. 61


1 | P a g e

Executive summary The Web Conference team completed detailed tests of 6 products. Of these, Lync was identified as

meeting Purdue’s need for small meeting web conferencing. No clear ‘winner’ was identified for large

meetings and classes; however, the team would recommend products in the following order:

1. Cisco WebEx

2. Saba

3. Adobe Connect 9 (assuming they fix their remote sharing issue)

4. Blackboard Collaborate

The following table summarizes the points each product received and the estimated costs…

Cisco

WebEx Saba

Meetings Adobe

Connect Blackboard Collaborate

Citrix Online (GoToMeeting)

Microsoft Lync

Team ranking 1 2 3 4 1

Product Cost $63,000 $103,800 $93,000 $103,160 $30,000 $0

Total points 1049 1197 1026 1016 974 1040

% of points 51% 58% 50% 50% 48% 51%

As with all technologies, additional products are constantly introduced to the marketplace. The team

selected products based on the then-available product comparisons and Gartner’s Magic Quadrant.

Recommended Action Plan Our current contract with Adobe Connect is due to expire this month. Because of the issues we are

having with Adobe Connect, we are negotiating a free 5-month extension of our contract with them.

However, purchase an alternative web conferencing product and migrating customers to it could take

about a year. Therefore, we ask that the OOC immediately take action on the following

recommendations:

1. Approve the purchase of Cisco WebEx

2. Ensure that Adobe Connect 8 is in place for one year during the transition to the new

3. Assign a team from IDC and the Academic Technology Planning Group to

a. develop a project plan for WebEx implementation

b. develop a plan to fully implement Lync

c. develop a migration plan from Adobe Connect to WebEx

d. create appropriate webpages, instructional materials, workshops and other supports for

both WebEx and Lync

e. communicate with the University and the OOC on progress on the project

4. Continue to look at web conferencing solutions annually or bi-annually

Below are details of each step with supporting documentation.


3 | P a g e

Findings

Team Charge The team was asked to look at current services to determine:

Are there already adequate services that simply… o need to be better leveraged; o need additional investment and/or re-tooling; o need additional support services behind them; o need a different funding model, etc.

Is a single solution appropriate, or should there be a suite of use-specific products supported?

Should it be a hosted service, in-house or some combination?

Current Landscape Currently, ITaP supports Adobe Connect v8. In addition, we have access to Lync through our Microsoft

license. Some areas of the campus also use Blue Jeans (Krannert and College of Liberal Arts) and Skype

(Krannert executive education programs). Krannert has specifically chosen Skype because they find it

more reliable than Adobe Connect. For more information about these, see Currently used products.

Last year we piloted Adobe Connect 9 as a hosted product through MeetingOne (contract expires

1/31/14). This was in realization that v8 is an old product with many dissatisfied users due to

connection, audio and visual issues. Adobe Connect 8 had the ability to allow meeting hosts to share

their screens with attendees when the host is using a roaming profile (roaming profiles are used

whenever the host uses a meeting room, lab or classroom computer to host a meeting). In fall 2013, a

technical issue in Adobe Connect 9 resulted in the inability of meeting hosts to share their screens with

other participants. Based on this, the Adobe Connect 9 pilot team determined that the v9 product was

not a viable option for Purdue West Lafayette campus. Since this time, a change in Adobe Connect 8 has

resulted in the same issue: roaming profile hosts cannot share their screen with meeting participants.

MeetingOne is now working with Adobe to determine if a fix is possible. If so, the Adobe Connect pilot

team will need to determine if Purdue West Lafayette 1) remains with v8 or 2) switches to Connect v9,

discontinuing v8. This will be impacted by the web conferencing decision of the OOC group. The OOC

Web Conferencing team recommends that the University remain with Adobe Connect v8 as the majority

of campus Adobe Connect users are on v8 and very few on v9.

Changing Landscape Although we believe that Cisco WebEx is currently best suited to meet the majority of customers and

situations, technology is changing very rapidly. WebRTC (Web Real-Time Communication) will result in

major changes to the communications landscape in the next few years. This may result in a change in

leaders and in new features and approaches to web conferencing.

Based on this, this team further recommends that an annual or bi-annual review of audio-video

conferencing products to ensure Purdue remains focused on providing a stable and effective means for

faculty, staff and students to engage with each other as well as external partners and stakeholders..


4 | P a g e

Growing need for web conferencing The team was charged with reviewing current web conferencing systems as well as current and future

needs. With the growth of the IMPACT program, we can anticipate that more courses will increase use

of web conferencing to include distance elements such as providing mini-lectures, online office hours,

and group work discussions. In addition, future programs such as the graduate unified Purdue-wide

Nursing program could make web conferencing more attractive for planning meetings.

Accessibility Initially, 508 compliance was listed by the team as a very important feature, but not a mandatory item.

With the new rulings on university responsibilities for 508 compliance we have determined that 508

compliance is a vital part of our study. To this end, we requested statements from each vendor and also

included an accessibility review of the finalists. The Accessibility review is included in the attachments.

Summary

WebEx accessibility was quite good for both screen reader users and keyboard-only users.

Saba accessibility required installing JAVA Access Bridge and editing a file using a command line. A typical user would need assistance doing this. Accessibility was not intuitive and was inconsistent (perhaps operator error?).

GoToMeeting was not accessible. A Citrix community thread indicates they have no plans to address accessibility issues of their product. http://community.gotomeeting.com/gotomeeting/topics/accessibility-11t79f

Adobe Connect is relatively accessible. Ohio State has an excellent site describing how it can be operated by a screen reader user. https://ocio.osu.edu/elearning/services/tools/carmenconnect/accessibility/

Gartner & CIC Findings Gartner identified 6 products as leaders in web conferencing. Six other products were also identified as

making their 2012 magic quadrant (this is the latest Gartner review of web conference products) (see

Gartner Magic Quadrants). All these products were reviewed by the team for initial consideration. The

team rating was not influenced by the Gartner quadrant location; however, the five products reviewed

for final consideration were all within the leader quadrant.

It is also worthy of note that Cisco was also listed as a leader in the 2013 Gartner Magic Quadrant for

unified communications (see Gartner Magic Quadrants).

The CIC group respondents indicate that many products are in use, however, centrally supported

products are limited. The following indicates products and number of CIC universities supporting them

(for details see CIC Product Use):

CENTRALLY SUPPORTED PRODUCTs CIC Universities

Adobe Connect 6

Blackboard Collaborate 2

Google Hangouts 2

Cost, Features and Ease of Use Comparison The following charts illustrate the comparative costs and user satisfaction.

http://community.gotomeeting.com/gotomeeting/topics/accessibility-11t79f

https://ocio.osu.edu/elearning/services/tools/carmenconnect/accessibility/


5 | P a g e

Cisco

WebEx Saba

Meetings Adobe



Microsoft Lync

Team ranking 1 2 3 4

1

Product cost $63,000 $103,800 $93,000 $103,160 $30,000 $0

As can be seen, prices vary widely. These are not yet negotiated. As each vendor has a different pricing

model, final prices may change based on changing needs (such as number of licenses, estimated use,

etc.).

The team initially created a list of features, gave an importance rating to each feature (see Ranked

features list), and then found details about each product for each feature. The products were then

compared to each other feature-by-feature and ranked (for complete details on rankings, see

spreadsheet available in the SharePoint site > campus video conferencing strategy - Shared Documents -

TaskTeam - Web Conferencing > Vendor Survey results). This resulted in a final list of six candidates.

Cisco

WebEx Saba

Meetings Adobe



Microsoft Lync

Team ranking 1 2 3 4

1

Product cost $63,000 $103,800 $93,000 $103,160 $30,000 $0

Total points 1049 1197 1026 1016 974 1040

% of points 51% 58% 50% 50% 48% 51%

Four of the six final products were brought in-house for side-by-side comparison. Lync was not included

because of issues piloting in our current environment. Adobe Connect was not specifically brought in as

it is already centrally supported.

Team findings

Team members tried each product in various venues. For details on these, see Team testing results. The

following conclusions were drawn:

Cisco WebEx – to view recordings, an add-on is required at the user level.

Saba Meetings – The application is not secure unless anonymous access is disabled at a

university level; if this access was disabled, meeting hosts would be required to register all

attendees and attendees would be required to sign in. The team found that the features within

Saba were unreliable. The menus were non-intuitive and inconsistent in how they function. Java

requirements were more stringent for Saba than other products (since testing ended, Saba has

developed desktop versions for Mac and PCs which might eliminate this issue). Saba was less

forgiving when negotiating with older hardware or hardware that did not have the latest and

most current driver.

Blackboard Collaborate – Collaborate is very full-featured. However, locating the features was

difficult as there are so many possibilities. For the average user, we felt finding the one or two

features they would normally need was too difficult. The reliability of the java-based interface

was questionable. When resizing ‘panels’ the screen would not always redraw appropriately,

resulting with portions of panels that were unusable. Sound quality was the worst of the tested

products. The sound was muddy.

Citrix was considered the best product based on quality and ease of use. However, its

inaccessibility eliminated it from further consideration.

https://sp2010.itap.purdue.edu/ovpit/OOCRound4/campusvideo/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?id=/ovpit/OOCRound4/campusvideo/Shared%20Documents/TaskTeam%20-%20Web%20Conferencing/Vendor%20Survey%20results.xlsx&Source=https%3A%2F%2Fsp2010%2Eitap%2Epurdue%2Eedu%2Fovpit%2FOOCRound4%2Fcampusvideo%2FSitePages%2FHome%2Easpx%3FRootFolder%3D%252Fovpit%252FOOCRound4%252Fcampusvideo%252FShared%2520Documents%252FTaskTeam%2520%252D%2520Web%2520Conferencing%26FolderCTID%3D0x012000C02ED3E5B9D6CC45A8CB87CB4EAAF6FA%26View%3D%7B3FDF8A4D%2DA02C%2D4485%2D9101%2D4E2D907C58B2%7D&DefaultItemOpen=1&DefaultItemOpen=1



6 | P a g e

Other Product Testers

The team opened up product testing to almost 100 people. Of these, approximately 30% were from

colleges (see Participation). Testers were contacted by email an average of once/week for 10 weeks.

Unfortunately, as seen below, only 31 surveys were entered. However, the survey results reflected the

opinions of the team members.

User satisfaction is based on the surveys completed by testers.

Team rankings 1 2 3 4

Value of Rating

Cisco WebEx

Saba Meetings

Adobe Connect

Blackboard Collaborate


Overall, how happy were you with the experience of using this product?

Very Unhappy -2 1 2

2 3

Unhappy -1 2 1

1 1

Neither 0 3

2

Happy 1 4 3

1

Very happy 2 1 1

3

TOTAL POINTS

2.00 0.00

-5.00 0.00

Total testers

11 7

3 10 If this product was chosen by Purdue, would it meet your current web conferencing needs?

Yes 1 2 2

4

Maybe 0 8 2

4

No -1 1 3

3 2

TOTAL POINTS

1.00 -1.00

-3.00 2.00

In this chart, higher numbers indicate a more positive result. Although no product was unanimously

supported, based on the results, Cisco WebEx is overall more acceptable to those who tested. This

reaction was echoed by the team. (NOTE: Citrix also received high ratings. However, Citrix was removed

from consideration due to its inaccessibility.) Graphs displaying survey results for each product are

available in the appendices (see Team testing results).

Adobe Connect v8/v9 While the product testers were not asked to review Adobe Connect, the project team members did

include Adobe Connect in the features comparison chart (SharePoint site > campus video conferencing

strategy - Shared Documents - TaskTeam - Web Conferencing > Vendor Survey results). It ranked third in

product comparisons. However, this was without considering the roaming profile issue (see Current

Landscape). With the roaming profile issue unresolved, the web conferencing team feels Adobe

Connect is not a viable product for academic use.

Adobe Connect has been available on campus for many years. Many customers have complained about

the quality of conferences. Adobe Connect now has a negative reputation in many areas of the

university. In addition, working with Adobe for troubleshooting has been problematic. This has been

underscored by our recent attempts to get a fix for a classroom access issue in Adobe Connect 9.




7 | P a g e

Lync Microsoft Lync is currently available to all Purdue faculty and staff as a part of our Microsoft contract.

This is widely used for one-on-one chats. However, the product is quite powerful and can be used for

video meetings for small groups due to hardware limitations of current Purdue on premise solution. If

the university moves to Microsoft 365, then Lync may also be available to students and for larger

meetings.. This is a strong candidate for small to medium meetings that comes at no additional charge.

We therefore recommend that this be made fully available and used as a solution for areas currently

using Skype and Blue Jeans and, further, for those wanting easy and fast chat sessions.

Team members Pat Reid ITaP

Ed Stanisz College of Agriculture

Pam White College of Veterinary Medicine

Jason Culp State-wide Technology

Ed Dunn ITaP

Jeff Ello School of Management

Ben Holmes ITaP

Process

Develop criteria for evaluating current and/or new services - COMPLETE In this step, the team:

1. Identified current features by reviewing current Purdue systems and searching the web for web conferencing features. Also developed list of List of administrative desired features.

2. Surveyed university for importance of features (Copy of survey sent to Purdue faculty and staff and Results of survey sent to Purdue faculty and staff). The survey was advertised in Purdue Today and team members also emailed their user groups asking them to complete the survey.

3. Analyzed the survey results (Survey Analysis) 4. Rated the features based upon a Kepner-Tregoe decision-making process, identifying required

and desired features. Desired features were then weighted based upon survey results and team review (Ranked features list)

Evaluate products/services and identify those that most closely meet campus

needs - COMPLETE

5. Reviewed Gartner Research magic quadrants 6. Reviewed various websites for product comparisons (Websites reviewed for product

comparisons)

7. Surveyed CIC-LT members for used and supported products (Summary:) 8. Requested vendor information for the top 12 vendors – vendor information for each product is

available in the SharePoint site > campus video conferencing strategy - Shared Documents - TaskTeam - Web Conferencing

9. Narrowed down to 6 products for further analysis – Adobe Connect, Blackboard Collaborate, Cisco WebEx, Citrix GoToMeeting, Microsoft Lync, and Saba

10. Viewed vendor demonstrations of five of these products using a common script (Demonstration Script) (Adobe Connect was not demonstrated as the team is already very familiar with the product)

https://sp2010.itap.purdue.edu/ovpit/OOCRound4/campusvideo/SitePages/Home.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fovpit%2FOOCRound4%2Fcampusvideo%2FShared%20Documents%2FTaskTeam%20%2D%20Web%20Conferencing&FolderCTID=0x012000C02ED3E5B9D6CC45A8CB87CB4EAAF6FA&View=%7b3FDF8A4D-A02C-4485-9101-4E2D907C58B2%7d

https://sp2010.itap.purdue.edu/ovpit/OOCRound4/campusvideo/SitePages/Home.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fovpit%2FOOCRound4%2Fcampusvideo%2FShared%20Documents%2FTaskTeam%20%2D%20Web%20Conferencing&FolderCTID=0x012000C02ED3E5B9D6CC45A8CB87CB4EAAF6FA&View=%7b3FDF8A4D-A02C-4485-9101-4E2D907C58B2%7d


8 | P a g e

11. Based on the demonstrations and previous vendor information, compared the six products using the required and desired features identified in step 3.

Compare products - COMPLETE 1. Completed the vendor comparison charts – Reviewed each product against the features list then

ranked each product for each feature. (spreadsheet available in the SharePoint site > campus video conferencing strategy - Shared Documents - TaskTeam - Web Conferencing > Vendor Survey results)

2. Identified finalist products for in-house pilots – we actually brought in pilots for the following: Blackboard Collaborate, Cisco WebEx, Citrix Gotomeeting/Gototraining, and Saba. We invited almost 100 people to participate and complete surveys of their experiences.

3. Worked with each vendor to estimate implementation and annual costs – costs are detailed below in Gartner & CIC Findings

4. Worked with ITaP Accessibility Services to review 508 compliance and overall use of the finalists. This resulted in elimination of Citrix Gotomeeting/Gototraining – see Accessibility section for summary and Accessibility review in appendix for details

5. Developed a final set of recommendations (see Executive summary) to include:

product/service recommendations

approximate cost and timeline to deploy

estimated on-going costs (maintenance, life-cycle replacement, etc.)




9 | P a g e

Appendices

Currently used products The following is a brief analysis of Adobe Connect, Lync and Blue Jeans as currently used on campus. While Adobe Connect and Lync are the current supported products, Blue Jeans is included here because of the strong attachment some customers have with Blue Jeans (see page 15 for other products currently used).

Adobe Connect

Adobe Connect has been on campus for eight years. Many areas of the university have expressed concern about the ease of use and quality of Connect (these are reflected in the survey comments below).

ITaP currently supports two versions of Connect – an in-house Connect 8 and a pilot of hosted Connect 9. The Connect 8 has fewer features and the quality is not as good as Connect 9. In addition, it currently is not updated regularly.

Both versions are now showing issues with roaming access; meeting hosts cannot display their screens to participants.

The annual cost for Connect 8 was $66,690.74. This does not include internal costs for equipment, staffing resources, etc.

The annual cost for hosted Connect 9 through Meeting One was $93,000 ($40K for Adobe Connect 9 and $53K for Media Hosting). As it is hosted, no internal costs are incurred.

Microsoft Lync

Microsoft Lync is provided as part of the Microsoft contract and therefore does not incur additional vendor costs. We currently provide limited functions with Lync, although it does include enough features for it to be considered a full web conferencing system. We also do not provide access to students.

Lync is scheduled for an upgrade in early 2014.

Skype

Skype is currently used by Krannert for connecting instructors and students. However, as Skype and Lync

are being merged, only Lync was considered for this project (see Microsoft Unites Skype and Lync, Cisco

Protests).

Blue Jeans

The following email describes our experience with Blue Jeans… From: Nagle, Jeffrey E Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 8:48 AM To: Stanisz, Edward D. Subject: bluejeans BlueJeans video conferencing holds a lot of merit on the surface. The functionality that is available makes it an appealing options, however, in my experience the issues with BlueJeans are not fully sorted out. On several occasions we have had issues with audio (microphone volumes too low, intermittent dropping of people's audio, etc) and these issues outweight the advantages of the additional functionality of bluejeans. There is no added value if the audio is unusable. Here is one example: Recently, trying to setup a video conference with several staff here on campus to connect wtih a group from another university, I suggested we use BlueJeans. It is designed to eliminate these types of issues with finding the right software to make the right connection.

http://www.informationweek.com/infrastructure/unified-communications/microsoft-unites-skype-and-lync-cisco-protests/d/d-id/1110165?

http://www.informationweek.com/infrastructure/unified-communications/microsoft-unites-skype-and-lync-cisco-protests/d/d-id/1110165?


10 | P a g e

On our end, we were using a Logitech BCC 950 webcam (pretty much top of the line in desktop solutions). On the far site, they had IT professionals and a sound engineer available to be sure it was of good quality. However, when we connected, the volume from the far site was very very quiet, to the point we could not hear them. After a small amount of troubleshooting, we switched over to Skype and had no sound issues. I really like the concept behind BlueJeans, I think the idea has a lot of merit, but based on my experiences I am hesitant to use it for any additional video conference due to the issues we have had. Jeff Nagle Extension IT Specialist Purdue University 765-494-8496


11 | P a g e

List of administrative desired features & product questions 1. Active directory integration: the ability to populate meeting rooms and assign permissions using

AD groups. 2. Accessible interface: meeting rooms should be navigable by screen-reading software. The web

conferencing software should be Section 508-compliant. 3. Ability of system administrators to log in as any user. Being able to see the software with the

permissions and content of a specific user helps the troubleshooting process. 4. Does your product support Continuous Presence? If so, how many endpoints can be on screen

at once? 5. How many screen layouts do you support? Can the end user configure his or her layout

independently of Host? 6. What audio and video protocols are used for transport? 7. What type and level of encryption is available? 8. Is Desktop Sharing stream encrypted? 9. How does your product handle firewalls and NAT transversal? 10. Reports? Can you provide list of pre-built or canned reports if exists? Can end user get reports

himself for his meetings or events? 11. What is maximum number of users that can participate in one meeting? 12. Is there a maximum number of meetings that can be active at once? 13. That is average connection speed of calls in Kb/sec? Give rates for all ranges, including Audio

only. 14. Does your product do transcoding of any kind? 15. Does your product support ability to Record events? What is format of audio and video

(MPEG4?)? Can those files be moved, copied or used outside your product and still function. 16. Do you offer both on and off-premise solution? 17. Does your product work on Mac, PC, iOS, Android, Linux? 18. Does your product work within Browser or stand-alone application? If Browser, does it require a

plug-in or Extension? What browsers do you support? 19. Does your product integrate with other products? Which ones?


12 | P a g e

Copy of survey sent to Purdue faculty and staff (Because respondents could have multiple roles in using web conferencing, this survey includes a loop to

allow respondents to answer based on each role.)

Web Conferencing Needs Assessment

1. Do you use web conferencing primarily for teaching, research, or administrative work?

2. What roles do you fill when you use web conferencing software?

3. Rate the importance of the following to a successful, useful web conference experience:

4. If there are other features important to the success of web conferences, please list them here:

5. How often do you use web conferencing?

6. What devices do you use to access web conferences?

7. What web conferencing software do you use?

8. Describe what types of web conferences you attend, or how you use web conferencing

software:

9. With what Purdue department are you primarily affiliated?

10. (Optional) To allow us to contact you for more information, enter your email address.

11. Rate the importance to your work of each web conferencing feature:

12. If there are other features important to the success of your web conferences, please list them

here:

13. Would you make use of a premium service (a more robust web conferencing service provided at

a cost per hour used)?

14. How much would you be willing to pay for a premium service?


16. How many attendees do you have, on average, when you use web conferencing in the following

ways? Please click Not Applicable on the right if you do not use web conferencing in that way.

17. What devices do your participants/attendees/students use?


19. Describe your typical uses of web conferencing software:



22. You stated that you primarily use web conferencing XX. Do you also use web conferencing for

other types of work?

23. Do you have different needs for that type of work, and would you be willing to answer some of

the survey questions again to inform us of those different needs?

24. Rate the importance of each web conferencing feature to other work (other than XX):

25. How often do you use web conferencing, other than for XX?



28. Describe your typical non-XX uses of web conferencing software:


13 | P a g e

Results of survey sent to Purdue faculty and staff

Web Conferencing Needs Assessment

Last Modified: 05/17/2013

1. Do you use web conferencing primarily for teaching, research, or administrative work?

# Answer

Response %

1 Teaching / Learning

203 41%

2 Research

92 19%

3 Administrative work

200 40%

Total 495 100%

2. What roles do you fill when you use web conferencing software?

# Answer

Response %

1 Facilitator / Host

292 59%

2 Presenter / Instructor / Content expert

243 49%

3 Viewer / Student / Observer

265 54%

4 I participate in group meetings; all attendees have equal control

242 49%

3. Rate the importance of the following to a successful, useful web conference experience:

(Scale from 1=”This is a must-have” to 5=”This feature should NOT be included”)

# Question This is a

must-have!

It would be nice to have

this feature.

I might use this

occasionally.

I don't need this

feature.

This feature should NOT be

included.

Total Responses

Mean

1 Upload a file (e.g. PowerPoint or PDF) for display

42 13 6 1 0 62 1.45

13 Share files with attendees (allow download of files)

31 16 10 4 1 62 1.84

4 Share voice via a headset or computer microphone

38 12 8 4 0 62 1.65

5 Share live video (web camera/video camera)

19 24 13 6 0 62 2.10

6 Allow attendees to share live video

10 29 18 5 0 62 2.29

7 Grant attendees other rights (such as screen sharing, voice sharing, or uploading files)

20 15 21 5 1 62 2.23

14 Share screen 20 16 18 7 1 62 2.24

15 Allow attendees to control presenter's screen

5 12 22 16 7 62 3.13

8 Share a pre-recorded video 16 29 13 4 0 62 2.08

12 Record your web conference sessions

32 17 8 4 1 62 1.79

9 Chat with attendees 24 25 9 3 1 62 1.90


14 | P a g e

10 Draw/write on a whiteboard 12 22 17 7 4 62 2.50

11 Break audience into groups (break-out sessions)

3 11 25 19 4 62 3.16

16 Live polling of attendees 15 24 13 8 2 62 2.32

17 Force a web page to open on attendees' computers

5 16 21 16 4 62 2.97

18 Restrict who can enter the conference room

17 10 23 10 2 62 2.52

19 Prepare materials and chat with other hosts/presenters in a "backstage" area

5 21 22 11 3 62 2.77

21 Bring attendees in from other systems (e.g. Skype or PolyCom users)

5 28 15 11 3 62 2.66

22 Integrate with a teleconference line

13 24 18 5 2 62 2.34

23 Reports on session attendance and recording viewing

11 16 21 10 4 62 2.68

24 Integrate with classroom lecture capture system (e.g. Boilercast/Echo360)

4 20 14 20 4 62 3.00

25 Integrate with appointment scheduling (e.g. Outlook)

9 19 19 10 5 62 2.73

26 Integrate with Blackboard / Kaltura

6 16 16 19 5 62 3.02

27 Change and save meeting room layouts

6 13 22 16 5 62 3.02

28 Usable without installing extra software

18 33 5 5 1 62 2.00

29 Reusable meeting URLs 9 29 16 4 4 62 2.44

4. If there are other features important to the success of web conferences, please list them here:

Text Response

Ease of use! Ease of use! Ease of use. Meetings are stressful enough already. I can't tell you how many meetings I've been at that spend the first 15 minutes trying to get everybody connected. That is unacceptable. It is also worth mentioning that in many of these cases the facilitators wound up calling the person on a cell phone and putting them on speaker. If a cell phone on speaker can beat your fancy web system there's something fundamentally wrong.

None

N/A

STABILITY!!!

None

Ease of use is a must. Adobe Connect, for example, is clumsy and cumbersome to use.

N/A

None

Regardless of what Purdue does I'll probably continue to use Google Hangouts.

Ability to work with PCs and macs


15 | P a g e

Statistic Value

Total Responses 10


# Answer

Response %

1 Less than Once a Month

21 33%

2 Once a Month

23 37%

3 2-3 Times a Month

14 22%

4 Once a Week

3 5%

5 2-3 Times a Week

2 3%

6 Daily

0 0%

Total 63 100%

6. What devices do you use to access web conferences?

# Answer

Response %

1 Microsoft Windows desktops/laptops

51 81%

2 Mac OS desktops/laptops

9 14%

3 Linux desktops/laptops

2 3%

4 iOS devices (iPad, iPhone)

10 16%

5 Android devices (tablet or phone)

4 6%

6 Windows Phones

0 0%

7 Windows Surface tablets

0 0%

8 IP Video devices such as Polycom (please specify)

2 3%

9 I don't know.

6 10%

IP Video devices such as Polycom (please specify)

Polycom


# Answer

Response %

1 Adobe Connect

50 79%

2 Blackboard Collaborate (previously Wimba Classroom and Elluminate)

0 0%

3 Cisco WebEx

11 17%


16 | P a g e

4 Citrix GotoMeeting

13 21%

5 Google Hangouts

7 11%

6 Skype

17 27%

7 Other (please specify)

3 5%

Other (please specify)

goto meeting

i don't know

face time

8. Describe what types of web conferences you attend, or how you use web conferencing software:

Text Response

Lessons taught by the FNP staff or arranged by them

I have only been a participant in Adobe Connect sessions. Today, I received an inquiery about our ability to arrange webinars for a group that I work with. I am totally ignorant about what our local office is capable of doing in this area. I think that we can, but I don't know where to start. I may be contacting you.

Trainings, summits, meetings, etc.

monthly trainings

I use web conferencing software mostly as a passive viewer, with occasional need to post a comment. I recently used Lync to allow a colleague the opportunity to view my desktop screen in order to assist me with a tech problem.

Educational

Viewing only

not really sure what all kind of web conferencing software i use.

Work related

Receive training from on-campus office

Research webinars on new technologies and software.

I only veiw them as a learner.....Adobe Connect

Trainings and staff updates. I do not like to have to listen and talk over the phone. We only have 2 phone lines. When we do this - one is tied up for an hour or sometimes more. Also we do not have the ability to mute all of the phones. We have to sit with a hand over the mouth piece to keep background noise from being transmitted.

Adobe Connect

My number one use has been for collaboration between small groups. I collaborate with researchers in Florida and we both work on the same document using Adobe connect. Again, it's worth mentioning that neither Skype nor Adobe connect seem to be as reliable as a phone connection. So sometimes we just use the screen sharing and talk via cell phone. I've also often had attendees visit meeting via Skype on an iPad. That also seems to work well enough. More recently I've been looking at using Google documents sharing capabilities and Google hangout, but I don't have any experience with that as yet.

Topic webinars from NQAC, CMS and EHR focused learning

n/a

Mostly Adobe Connect

School discussions, virtual open house presentations, webinars, remote class lectures, peer to peer conversations and study groups.

I typically participate in an online conference a few times a month, and I occasionally host web conferences.


17 | P a g e

view adobes for learning

The majority of my conferencing is for small group meetings or one-on-one meetings remotely. I have really liked the way Adobe Connect works and Skype and Google Hangouts both have their strengths in simplicity and broad availability. I have used GotoMeeting, but haven't had enough experience with it to really critique it thoroughly, though it did seem to be more difficult to establish a connection than Adobe, Google or Skype.

Construction Production Class

Training sessions

Vendor support

I watch webinars. I also do student appointments with students who are international--so in China.

Meetings with research collaborators mostly. If the system worked well and were easily usable and scalable, I would use it for instructional purposes, online classes, officer hours, etc.

Training

Mostly in the past a campus-wide suggested conference.

staff meetings and training sesssions - as the attendee

weekly meeting

Online show and tell sessions.

Conferences with federal and state agencies. Presentations by industry and government.

Group-informational

use to broadcast a seminar when room is to capacity

mostly meetings(departmental, etc.)

I am sometimes an attendee of the weekly ITaP Change Management web conference meeting.

Statistic Value Total Responses 37


Text Response

Asdf

Purdue Extension

FNP

Field Extension Staff

College of Agriculture – Extension

HHS Extension

Cooperative Extension

HHS (FNP)

Ag Research Programs

Agriculture

NEP/FNP/EFNEP

AG Business Office

Extension

Entomology

Extension field staff

Cooperative Extension

HDFS

Psychological sciences


18 | P a g e

Agricultural Economics

Nursing

Mechanical Engineering Technology

n/a

Pharmacy Practice

Purdue Academic Technologies

Agriculture

Department of Education. Learning Design and Technology (online)

CIT

Purdue CES

Extension

CIE

PAC

ITaP

Student Affairs

ITaP

nutrition education prgrams

Undergraduate Studies Program (exploratory undergraduate advising and career instruction)

College of Technology

BMS and SLHS

Technology

Purdue Extension

Physical facilities

Purdue Calument Information Services Technological Infrastructure Services

Undergraduate Studies Program

Computer Science

OTC

physical facilities

College of Engineering

Krannert

Business Management

Management

Libraries

Krannert School of Management

ITaP

Engineering Computer Network.

Extension

Office of Indiana State Chemist

Liberal Arts

Development

Veterinary Clinical Sciences

ECN

Student Success at Purdue

Extension

ITaP ITIS Data Networks


19 | P a g e

Statistic Value

Total Responses 63


11. Rate the importance to your work of each web conferencing feature:


# Question This is a

must-have!

It would be nice to have

this feature.

I might use this

occasionally.

I don't need this

feature.


included.

Total Responses

Mean


307 83 34 7 1 432 1.41


202 148 67 15 0 432 1.76


321 88 14 9 0 432 1.33


251 134 32 15 0 432 1.56


160 153 83 36 0 432 1.99

7 Grant attendees other rights at your discretion (such as screen sharing, voice sharing, or uploading files)

177 159 83 13 0 432 1.84

14 Share your screen 262 107 46 17 0 432 1.58

15 Allow attendees to control your screen

45 81 150 130 26 432 3.03

8 Share a pre-recorded video

136 161 93 41 1 432 2.10


214 121 73 22 2 432 1.79


10 Draw/write on a whiteboard

96 182 115 36 3 432 2.23


23 84 147 169 9 432 3.13

16 Live polling of 78 147 121 84 2 432 2.50


20 | P a g e

attendees

17 Force a web page to open on your attendees' computers

25 97 165 128 17 432 3.03


169 129 86 42 6 432 2.04

19 Prepare materials and chat with other hosts/presenters in a "backstage" area

54 142 137 93 6 432 2.66


109 180 92 45 6 432 2.21


119 181 94 34 4 432 2.13


85 174 105 63 5 432 2.37


40 88 133 158 13 432 3.04


53 148 132 93 6 432 2.66


33 106 120 159 14 432 3.03


58 139 131 98 6 432 2.66


139 212 59 20 2 432 1.92

29 Reusable meeting URLs

128 203 70 28 3 432 2.02

12. If there are other features important to the success of your web conferences, please list them here:

Text Response

Usable on a wide variety of operating systems without extra troubles

Q

Dependability is key.

I would like voice with it I get real frustrated with having to have conference call with Adobe - why have it. I wish we could use all the nice equipment we got the with the Poly com system - I am told AgIT does not support and figure it out yourself.


21 | P a g e

Usable to public without installing extra software.

The ability to have participants sign them selves up, recieve a confirmation and then also recieive a followup regarding the recording if the did or did not participate in the live session with a link to the recording would be AWESOME...

Live technical support for users, or very user friendly system? Participation with mobile platforms would be nice.

If 2-3 faculty are co-teaching, allow each the ability to login as host, using the same persistent URL.

Most of our uses are distance meeting or classroom setting. 2 way communication such as Polycom is needed. We also need move live video from other sites and data transmission of slides.

Would be nice to have a system that is compatible with other north central region land grants.

It needs to work with out the need to involve 50 people, 6 emails and nine web links to setup. It should be as easy as skype (but work). Skype fails as often as it works and we revert to a phone call. It needs to be cheap. Again the intrnal process of paying for this stuff just adds more layers of crap. Currently this whole area is intresting but I consider it to be a premium pain and actually try to avoid it.

X

The solution needs to be open to anyone with an internet line. Our students should be able to log in at any location - NOT forced to come to a lecture room to get a remote presentation.

N/A?

We need to be able to archive sessions in a password protected space so that we can sell access to them through an online store.

All of the extras are great, but I need something that is reliable and won't constantly be kicking me out with my browser. My latest experience kept cycling me through on IE, Firefox, and Chrome.

Capacity is not an issue for me generally, but I have run a webinar series with 300+ attendees and it was too much for Adobe Connect. My attendee list is generally below 50 now, but it would be nice to be able to handle a large audience if needed. Also, quality recordings are important because I archive all webinars for future viewing.

good connections worldwide for international conferencing with sites in several countries

Easy for everyone to use is the most important to the success of web conference in the future.

As far and the next question "Would you make use of a premium service (a more robust web conferencing service provided at a cost per hour used)? " I would say yes as long as there was a scaled down version to use for free.

control angle...pan and tilt viewing camera

How to eliminate echo from presentations/exchanges

The ability for presenters from other locations to easily be heard. For voice to be utilized easily

Support line for if there are issues with technology.

Taking care that the Linux users can use it. Please don't treat Linux users as second class.

Stability, ability to prep course materials without opening web conference room to attendees, ease of finding recorded sessions.

Having all transmissions (file sharing, voice, and screen sharing/presentation layer) encrypted with SSL or some other strong encryption. My department pays for go-to-meeting so that meetings with our external clients are protected.

1) Easy access to web conferencing software for students who are not on campus (e.g registered students who are in full time internships off campus) 2) Easy access to camera, microphone and quiet location for presenters.

It would be nice to be able to see and hear students rather than just chatting.

?!?

Transmissions/sessions have to be over SSL or other secure communication methodology as some information exchange is of restricted and sensitive classifications


22 | P a g e

Really, if we could just get the audio and video to work without a lot of complications, that would be great. We have used Adobe Connect and have not had great success with it. People get booted out or the host server crashes, the quality is extremely poor (bad video, pixelated, audio not synced, poor audio quality...etc). We desperately want something dependable that has the features we need to give presentations, chat, and video conference with those on and off campus.

Reliablity and Widely adopted

the tool is stable and has a clear upgrade or deprecation path.

I don't undertand the LAST question but with my limited knowledge I don't need. It is ESSENTIAL that we do not have to hold a phone handset in our hands (this is what I do NOT like about Webex); we should be able to use speakerphone. It is VERY important (but not essential because we can post a link on Blackboard if we can't) that we can integrate with other software, like for example AdobeConnect, Explain everything, prezi, etc. i.e..; any other source that either the presenter or the conference attendee are using. The best integration would be ... the most user friendly one for not technicians: things like drag and drop => the most automatic method!

Able to use easily in countries or area with low bandwidth... Or have a "light" version for those users.

It must work! We have used Adobe Connect >50 times in the past. This semester when we tried to use it, it failed to load on the attendees apple computer! This caused us to waste 15 minutes, forced us to email them a copy and ask them to switch to the next slide.

a more robust ability to handle multiple mics without echo, distortion, etc.

It's crucial that the conferencing program be free to faculty and students.

Polling with clickers

the adobe connect has been really useful and it is very important to be able to use the guest feature to connect with those who do not have purdue id's.

Honestly,I don't use it enough to comment. I mainly use it for meetings or webinars someone has set up.

You have the items captured.

A collaborative feature that allows multiple speakers simultaneously and a recording feature to capture a good frame rate for playback.

Show a page on a book to the person on the other side.

Next question. Depends on the cost.

The features themselves are secondary to consistent performance and ease of use. We have not been able to use Adobe Connect video and voice because of significant lags. Additionally, multi-platform compatibility is critical. Many of our collaborators are on Apple computers, and increasingly tablets, which can make video conferencing a mess if the software is not compatible (i.e. group chat on Skype with iPads or Windows based live-streaming). Many academics do not have administrative rights to their networked machines, so if there are any plug-ins/downloads/etc. they must be installable without administrator approval. Also, the following question is no a suitable yes/no question. It would be contingent upon what the premium service offered and the cost. So, for now, I'll answer 'no', because I have found that premium services do not typically provide useful benefits. That said, we did recently purchase a month of Skype premium to allow for group chat, though if we'd had more experience with Google Hangouts (free service) at the time, we would have simply used that platform.

Multi-platform support (Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, Windows)

In the Purdue Extension offices in the field with Learning Centers, we were using the IHETS system to allow students locally be able to participate live in a college credit class from any of the Indiana colleges. We no longer have that capablility and this has created some difficulty achieving our mission. If there was a way to re-instate that capability it would be very helpful.

NA

editing abilities


23 | P a g e

None I can think of currently

foolproof for including participants who have low computer expertise and/or computer systems with older operating systems. Also, usable by people behind firewalls.

A user interface for participants that is intuitive and easy to use.

#1 - Faculty and staff need necessary software configurations and updates on their computer to run and/or pariticipate in Web conferencing. I can't tell you how many times people have not been able to participate because they don't have the correct software on their University comptuers.

No fee for use, computer platform agnostic, and It Just Works. The service should be a premium service, and it should be free to use, just like using the Internet at Purdue is free.

If using a teleconference phone line, have it integrated into the web format so you can see (and have control as a host/moderator) which phone lines are noise on them. For example, not on mute or hold music playing. I have used Cisco MeetingPlace and that was an option for moderators to control the audio of listeners.

several users on video chat viewable all at the same time (see google hangout) basically an extended version of Google Hangout would be nice

The software should be be easy to use and easy to set up for the system administrators. One of the problems with Adobe Connect is that it requires dozens of "clicks" to run. Since our classroom PCs use "deep freeze" software, the drivers have to be reloaded every time I use it. It would be nice if ITaP could help me set up a script to automatically load the drivers, customize the Pen and Touch parameters, etc., rather than having to manually do it each time. Also, Connect has some annoying quirks, such as having to "share" the screen twice to get it to work.

External users must be able to join conference as well. I have had a problem with this using Adobe Connect.

Ease of use. When things go wrong (and they do go wrong), it should be as intuitive and easy to use as Skype. Sound quality is very important (no echoing, no cut offs). Perhaps having the option of people telephoning in for the audio but the ability to have the software do the video and file displays. Video quality should be smooth (no hiccups) but audio is more important.

PolyCom Integration would be fantastic.

Dependability and user friendliness.

Phone or tablet/iPad app for mobile participants would be helpful too.

A platform that non-Purdue folks actually use.

Yes, Adobe Connect was logging students out when I was screen sharing. WebEx is stable.

high-quality sound for different environments of participants (e.g., I participated in an Adobe Connect 3-way web meeting last week, with two of being at individual computers with headsets and one site being a small conference room with ~8 people sitting around a table with a webcam - there were significant echos, and the main problem was that the volume from the webcam was low, so I kept turning up my headest volume, only to then be blasted when the other person using a headset spoke (since his sound was much higher quality and was very loud and clear.)). overall, the audio was just passable in this 3-way meeting, which I have experienced now twice with Adobe Connect (othertimes it is great).

Mac OS X Compatability

Avoiding presenters and attendees having to download software is a big plus. Needs to be super user friendly and intuitive.

editable wiki or similar shareable doc linked to the conference

audio and video quality very important, ease of access important, Adobe Connect has most of the features we want

Easy set up. I am not sure what robust means below, but it has to be easy and work EVERY time. We


24 | P a g e

have little in-house support for IT.

good quality sound, available to those outside Purdue, able to share files easily, nice to have users connect from platform easiest for them (Skype, Google Hangouts, cell phone, etc.)

Accessibility to people with disabilities is a must-have for me. This would include access to screen reader users and keyboard-only users, as well as the ability to add live captions when needed.

Would prefer not to have a telephone to hear the conversations.

That it works all the time like it is suppose to or at least a higher percentage than it does now. So much time is wasted because the system fails. I would like for more information on do's and don'ts when you are participating. Too many people don't understand how they ruin a call when they don't mute or do other expectations.

Simple application that has core functionality extendable with features if needed would be good.

I like WebEx,

Superior echo cancellation for group meetings. Better video frame rate (than existing Adobe Connect) for outboard cameras. SIP integration.

Tracking registration and viewers, Easy to use interface for participants and presenters

If it is not as good as Google Hangouts I'll just use Google Hangouts.

Powerful enough hardware and bandwidth to eliminate the significant lag I've experienced using Adobe Connect.

The more intuitive the usability, the better. Also, having a reliable connection at relatively low data transfer speeds is important for extending programming to the public for home viewing.

Being able to mute participates who have noisy lines that interfere with the meeting and being able to unmute them too. Being able to selectively share individual applications or entire desktop with participants.

Ease of set up, like instant, technician at hand if not easily set up

Must be reliable. Adobe Connect was NOT reliable from ARMS last fall semester. we could not use it most of the time.

Ability to video capture a panel of presenters rather than just a single presenter;

For teaching a class to Purdue students, Blackboard is a good supplement to web conferencing. Some things like share files with attendees (allow download of files) can ne done in Blackboard.

Not sure of any more -- ability to link via email to attendees (or have a listing of participants, including emails).

None.

Default documents with quick tips for new users (activating microphone, screen/pod adjustment, etc) included. Optional setting to require guests to indicate their organization/point of origin at login. Additional window options.

Campatibility/feature of closed captioning for accessibility is important

I hate Adobe Connect--it's only available in limited places on campus, and I have chosen not to use web/video conferencing because when it would have been a good option because as a person who is new to such conferencing, figuring out how and where to make it happen on campus has been daunting. I Skype regularly at home--at times for my research and at times with multiple people. This is a widely available, relatively intuitive system that many of use already. Many of us on campus will not be taking advantage of video/web conferencing on campus as much as we should until your systems are as easy to use.

I use web conferences mainly for dissertation committee meetings (one or more committee members is inevitably out of town, and there is often an external committee member from outside Purdue) and research meetings with colleagues outside Purdue. I also use web conferencing when I am asked to be an external examiner on a thesis from another university. I always use Skype because this is what other people use. This is what everyone is familiar with. Nobody wants to bother with Adobe connect,


25 | P a g e

especially if they are from outside Purdue. Because Purdue does not support Skype we are forced to use someone's personal laptop. If I were to use a Purdue-supported web interface, it would definitely need to be compatible with Skype. Until this happens, I expect that I will continue using Skype on a personal laptop.

I would really like to be able to use Skype. All my international colleagues use Skype, and they're reluctant to use another system for teleconferencing/videoconferencing.

Is someone actually considering further nickel and diming faculty and departments by charging an hourly fee? Boo!

the bigger and better the resolution, the more useful this will be. We also need something which will interface or work with other video systems, because we will be connecting with a variety of businesses and individuals, not all of whom will have the same equipment.

Video is key today. I have graduate students bringing their laptops to Purdue so that we can Skype with graduate committee members who at other universities. Purdue video conferencing is too cumbersome at this point. Skype isn't always reliable but it's easy to access and mostly provides good connections.

The system must be as easy to use as Skype or Faculty will not use it and they will resort to using unmanaged laptops and Skype in their classrooms again. Any cost per hour system would be a ineffective for those departments that could use the cost savings of leveraging such a system. Due to their diminished funds. They would resort to Skype again or end up not brining in as many guest lecturers that a more open system would allow.

Allow attendees to use a PC or Mac. Using a tablet/phone would be nice to have as well.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 110

13. Would you make use of a premium service (a more robust web conferencing service provided at a

cost per hour used)?

# Answer

Response %

1 Yes

140 32%

2 No

293 68%

Total 433 100%

14. How much would you be willing to pay for a premium service?

# Answer

Response %

1 Under $5/hour

24 17%

2 $6-$10 / hour

63 45%

3 $10-$30 / hour

39 28%

4 $30-$60 / hour

15 11%

5 Over $60 / hour

0 0%

Total 141 100%


# Answer

Response %


116 27%

2 Once a Month

114 26%

3 2-3 Times a Month

114 26%


26 | P a g e

4 Once a Week

43 10%

5 2-3 Times a Week

38 9%

6 Daily

7 2%

Total 432 100%

16. How many attendees do you have, on average, when you use web conferencing in the following

ways? Please click Not Applicable on the right if you do not use web conferencing in that way.

# Answer Min Value

Max Value Average Value

Standard Deviation

Responses

1 Group meeting 0.00 200.00 13.32 16.58 385

2 Webinar 0.00 200.00 41.46 38.95 247

3 Online/Hybrid class 0.00 200.00 37.21 44.50 138


# Answer

Response %


376 87%


270 63%


46 11%


229 53%


167 39%

6 Windows Phones

57 13%


53 12%


72 17%

9 I don't know.

95 22%

IP Video devices such as Polycom (please specify)

Smartboard

Polycom

would like to

Polycom

Lifesize

Polycom

Polycom

Viewstation

Polycom

Polycom

Polycom

Polycom, LifeSize


27 | P a g e

Polycom

Polycom

Polycom

Polycom

Polycom

Polycom

Polycom

Polycom

H.323

Polycom, Tandberg

Polycom

Polycom

Tandberg & Polycom

Polycom, Lifesize

i don't know

Polycom

polycom IHETS

Polycom

Polycom

Polycom

PolyCom

Polycom


# Answer

Response %

1 Adobe Connect

352 82%


15 3%

3 Cisco WebEx

58 13%


80 19%

5 Google Hangouts

50 12%

6 Skype

218 51%


60 14%


Smartboard

IHETS blue jeans

Would like to use Polycom system

Bluejeans

Another organization sets it up

Will likely subscribe to Citrix Go to Webinar in very near future Whatever I can find

I do not know specifics

PolyCom


28 | P a g e

Windows Live Meeting

Smartboard don't know

Polycom

Livestream; Windows Media Web Streaming

GoMeet

I've seen not used AdobeConnect; I only used Wimba Voice tools portion of Wimba Attconnect

IM MS LYNC

don't know, our IT specialist sets it up

BlueJeans

Oovoo Lync

Facetime

Etherpad

Cisco MeetingPlace

join.me

Not sure

Facetime

i don't know

bluejeans.com

Proprietary Eluminate

Polycom

National 4-H

BlueJeans

MS Lync 2010 Microsoft Lync

Talking Communities Web Conferencing

Polycom m100

drawpile; open-sankore

Fuzebox

Facetime

Lync

Have Polycom but that was abandoned

Polycom IHETS

I have attended WebEx but only presented through Adobe Connect Polycom

BlueJeans

Fuze Meeting

bluejeans and polycom

BLueJeans Lync

Bluejeans

Big Blue Button/ Scopia

FaceTime


29 | P a g e

19. Describe your typical uses of web conferencing software:

Text Response

Usable on a wide variety of operating systems without extra troubles

Q

Dependability is key.

I would like voice with it I get real frustrated with having to have conference call with Adobe - why have it. I wish we could use all the nice equipment we got the with the Poly com system - I am told AgIT does not support and figure it out yourself.

Usable to public without installing extra software.

The ability to have participants sign them selves up, recieve a confirmation and then also recieive a followup regarding the recording if the did or did not participate in the live session with a link to the recording would be AWESOME...

Live technical support for users, or very user friendly system? Participation with mobile platforms would be nice.

If 2-3 faculty are co-teaching, allow each the ability to login as host, using the same persistent URL.

Most of our uses are distance meeting or classroom setting. 2 way communication such as Polycom is needed. We also need move live video from other sites and data transmission of slides.

Would be nice to have a system that is compatible with other north central region land grants.

It needs to work with out the need to involve 50 people, 6 emails and nine web links to setup. It should be as easy as skype (but work). Skype fails as often as it works and we revert to a phone call. It needs to be cheap. Again the intrnal process of paying for this stuff just adds more layers of crap. Currently this whole area is intresting but I consider it to be a premium pain and actually try to avoid it.

x

The solution needs to be open to anyone with an internet line. Our students should be able to log in at any location - NOT forced to come to a lecture room to get a remote presentation.

N/A?

We need to be able to archive sessions in a password protected space so that we can sell access to them through an online store.

All of the extras are great, but I need something that is reliable and won't constantly be kicking me out with my browser. My latest experience kept cycling me through on IE, Firefox, and Chrome.

Capacity is not an issue for me generally, but I have run a webinar series with 300+ attendees and it was too much for Adobe Connect. My attendee list is generally below 50 now, but it would be nice to be able to handle a large audience if needed. Also, quality recordings are important because I archive all webinars for future viewing.

good connections worldwide for international conferencing with sites in several countries

Easy for everyone to use is the most important to the success of web conference in the future.

As far and the next question "Would you make use of a premium service (a more robust web conferencing service provided at a cost per hour used)? " I would say yes as long as there was a scaled down version to use for free.

control angle...pan and tilt viewing camera

How to eliminate echo from presentations/exchanges

The ability for presenters from other locations to easily be heard. For voice to be utilized easily

Support line for if there are issues with technology.

Taking care that the Linux users can use it. Please don't treat Linux users as second class.

Stability, ability to prep course materials without opening web conference room to attendees, ease of finding recorded sessions.


30 | P a g e

Having all transmissions (file sharing, voice, and screen sharing/presentation layer) encrypted with SSL or some other strong encryption. My department pays for go-to-meeting so that meetings with our external clients are protected.

1) Easy access to web conferencing software for students who are not on campus (e.g registered students who are in full time internships off campus) 2) Easy access to camera, microphone and quiet location for presenters.

It would be nice to be able to see and hear students rather than just chatting.

?!?

Transmissions/sessions have to be over SSL or other secure communication methodology as some information exchange is of restricted and sensitive classifications

Really, if we could just get the audio and video to work without a lot of complications, that would be great. We have used Adobe Connect and have not had great success with it. People get booted out or the host server crashes, the quality is extremely poor (bad video, pixelated, audio not synced, poor audio quality...etc). We desperately want something dependable that has the features we need to give presentations, chat, and video conference with those on and off campus.

Reliablity and Widely adopted

the tool is stable and has a clear upgrade or deprecation path.

I don't undertand the LAST question but with my limited knowledge I don't need. / It is ESSENTIAL that we do not have to hold a phone handset in our hands (this is what I do NOT like about Webex); we should be able to use speakerphone. / It is VERY important (but not essential because we can post a link on Blackboard if we can't) that we can integrate with other software, like for example AdobeConnect, Explain everything, prezi, etc. i.e..; any other source that either the presenter or the conference attendee are using. The best integration would be ... the most user friendly one for not technicians: things like drag and drop => the most automatic method! /

Able to use easily in countries or area with low bandwidth... Or have a "light" version for those users.

It must work! We have used Adobe Connect >50 times in the past. This semester when we tried to use it, it failed to load on the attendees apple computer! This caused us to waste 15 minutes, forced us to email them a copy and ask them to switch to the next slide.

a more robust ability to handle multiple mics without echo, distortion, etc.

It's crucial that the conferencing program be free to faculty and students.

Polling with clickers

the adobe connect has been really useful and it is very important to be able to use the guest feature to connect with those who do not have purdue id's.

Honestly,I don't use it enough to comment. I mainly use it for meetings or webinars someone has set up.

You have the items captured.

A collaborative feature that allows multiple speakers simultaneously and a recording feature to capture a good frame rate for playback.

Show a page on a book to the person on the other side.

Next question. Depends on the cost.

The features themselves are secondary to consistent performance and ease of use. We have not been able to use Adobe Connect video and voice because of significant lags. Additionally, multi-platform compatibility is critical. Many of our collaborators are on Apple computers, and increasingly tablets, which can make video conferencing a mess if the software is not compatible (i.e. group chat on Skype with iPads or Windows based live-streaming). Many academics do not have administrative rights to their networked machines, so if there are any plug-ins/downloads/etc. they must be installable without administrator approval. / / Also, the following question is no a suitable yes/no question. It would be


31 | P a g e

contingent upon what the premium service offered and the cost. So, for now, I'll answer 'no', because I have found that premium services do not typically provide useful benefits. That said, we did recently purchase a month of Skype premium to allow for group chat, though if we'd had more experience with Google Hangouts (free service) at the time, we would have simply used that platform.

Multi-platform support (Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, Windows)

In the Purdue Extension offices in the field with Learning Centers, we were using the IHETS system to allow students locally be able to participate live in a college credit class from any of the Indiana colleges. We no longer have that capablility and this has created some difficulty achieving our mission. If there was a way to re-instate that capability it would be very helpful.

NA

editing abilities

None I can think of curently

foolproof for including participants who have low computer expertise and/or computer systems with older operating systems. Also, usable by people behind firewalls. /

A user interface for participants that is intuitive and easy to use.

#1 - Faculty and staff need necessary software configurations and updates on their computer to run and/or pariticipate in Web conferencing. I can't tell you how many times people have not been able to participate because they don't have the correct software on their University comptuers.

No fee for use, computer platform agnostic, and It Just Works. The service should be a premium service, and it should be free to use, just like using the Internet at Purdue is free.

If using a teleconference phone line, have it integrated into the web format so you can see (and have control as a host/moderator) which phone lines are noise on them. For example, not on mute or hold music playing. I have used Cisco MeetingPlace and that was an option for moderators to control the audio of listeners.

several users on video chat viewable all at the same time (see google hangout) basically an extended version of Google Hangout would be nice

The software should be be easy to use and easy to set up for the system administrators. One of the problems with Adobe Connect is that it requires dozens of "clicks" to run. Since our classroom PCs use "deep freeze" software, the drivers have to be reloaded every time I use it. It would be nice if ITaP could help me set up a script to automatically load the drivers, customize the Pen and Touch parameters, etc., rather than having to manually do it each time. Also, Connect has some annoying quirks, such as having to "share" the screen twice to get it to work.

External users must be able to join conference as well. I have had a problem with this using Adobe Connect.

Ease of use. When things go wrong (and they do go wrong), it should be as intuitive and easy to use as Skype. Sound quality is very important (no echoing, no cut offs). Perhaps having the option of people telephoning in for the audio but the ability to have the software do the video and file displays. Video quality should be smooth (no hiccups) but audio is more important.

PolyCom Integration would be fantastic.

Dependability and user friendliness.

Phone or tablet/iPad app for mobile participants would be helpful too.

A platform that non-Purdue folks actually use.

Yes, Adobe Connect was logging students out when I was screen sharing. WebEx is stable.

high-quality sound for different environments of participants (e.g., I participated in an Adobe Connect 3-way web meeting last week, with two of being at individual computers with headsets and one site being a small conference room with ~8 people sitting around a table with a webcam - there were significant echos, and the main problem was that the volume from the webcam was low, so I kept


32 | P a g e

turning up my headest volume, only to then be blasted when the other person using a headset spoke (since his sound was much higher quality and was very loud and clear.)). overall, the audio was just passable in this 3-way meeting, which I have experienced now twice with Adobe Connect (othertimes it is great).

Mac OS X Compatability

Avoiding presenters and attendees having to download software is a big plus. Needs to be super user friendly and intuitive.

editable wiki or similar shareable doc linked to the conference

audio and video quality very important, ease of access important, Adobe Connect has most of the features we want

Easy set up. I am not sure what robust means below, but it has to be easy and work EVERY time. We have little in-house support for IT.

good quality sound, available to those outside Purdue, able to share files easily, nice to have users connect from platform easiest for them (Skype, Google Hangouts, cell phone, etc.)

Accessibility to people with disabilities is a must-have for me. This would include access to screen reader users and keyboard-only users, as well as the ability to add live captions when needed.

Would prefer not to have a telephone to hear the conversations.

That it works all the time like it is suppose to or at least a higher percentage than it does now. So much time is wasted because the system fails. / I would like for more information on do's and don'ts when you are participating. Too many people don't understand how they ruin a call when they don't mute or do other expectations.

Simple application that has core functionality extendable with features if needed would be good.

I like WebEx,

Superior echo cancellation for group meetings. Better video frame rate (than existing Adobe Connect) for outboard cameras. SIP integration.

Tracking registration and viewers, Easy to use interface for participants and presenters

If it is not as good as Google Hangouts I'll just use Google Hangouts.

Powerful enough hardware and bandwidth to eliminate the significant lag I've experienced using Adobe Connect.

The more intuitive the usability, the better. Also, having a reliable connection at relatively low data transfer speeds is important for extending programming to the public for home viewing.

Being able to mute participates who have noisy lines that interfere with the meeting and being able to unmute them too. Being able to selectively share individual applications or entire desktop with participants.

Ease of set up, like instant, technician at hand if not easily set up

Must be reliable. Adobe Connect was NOT reliable from ARMS last fall semester. we could not use it most of the time.

Ability to video capture a panel of presenters rather than just a single presenter;

For teaching a class to Purdue students, Blackboard is a good supplement to web conferencing. Some things like share files with attendees (allow download of files) can ne done in Blackboard.

Not sure of any more -- ability to link via email to attendees (or have a listing of participants, including emails).

None.

Default documents with quick tips for new users (activating microphone, screen/pod adjustment, etc) included. Optional setting to require guests to indicate their organization/point of origin at login. Additional window options.

Campatibility/feature of closed captioning for accessibility is important


33 | P a g e

I hate Adobe Connect--it's only available in limited places on campus, and I have chosen not to use web/video conferencing because when it would have been a good option because as a person who is new to such conferencing, figuring out how and where to make it happen on campus has been daunting. I Skype regularly at home--at times for my research and at times with multiple people. This is a widely available, relatively intuitive system that many of use already. Many of us on campus will not be taking advantage of video/web conferencing on campus as much as we should until your systems are as easy to use.

I use web conferences mainly for dissertation committee meetings (one or more committee members is inevitably out of town, and there is often an external committee member from outside Purdue) and research meetings with colleagues outside Purdue. I also use web conferencing when I am asked to be an external examiner on a thesis from another university. I always use Skype because this is what other people use. This is what everyone is familiar with. Nobody wants to bother with Adobe connect, especially if they are from outside Purdue. Because Purdue does not support Skype we are forced to use someone's personal laptop. If I were to use a Purdue-supported web interface, it would definitely need to be compatible with Skype. Until this happens, I expect that I will continue using Skype on a personal laptop.

I would really like to be able to use Skype. All my international colleagues use Skype, and they're reluctant to use another system for teleconferencing/videoconferencing.

Is someone actually considering further nickel and diming faculty and departments by charging an hourly fee? Boo!

the bigger and better the resolution, the more useful this will be. We also need something which will interface or work with other video systems, because we will be connecting with a variety of businesses and individuals, not all of whom will have the same equipment.

Video is key today. I have graduate students bringing their laptops to Purdue so that we can Skype with graduate committee members who at other universities. Purdue video conferencing is too cumbersome at this point. Skype isn't always reliable but it's easy to access and mostly provides good connections.

The system must be as easy to use as Skype or Faculty will not use it and they will resort to using unmanaged laptops and Skype in their classrooms again. Any cost per hour system would be a ineffective for those departments that could use the cost savings of leveraging such a system. Due to their diminished funds. They would resort to Skype again or end up not brining in as many guest lecturers that a more open system would allow.

Allow attendees to use a PC or Mac. Using a tablet/phone would be nice to have as well.

Reliability and speed are also important.

minimal investment in equipment and software to enable users

have not used enough yet to give details

100% reliable with no need for administrative support

Need skype, as well as programs such as Adobe Connect. I'm not sure exactly what service you refer to below, but everythng is worth considering.

It is very helpful if the web conferencing does not require a high bandwidth as it is not always available for everyone that is being included in web conferencing.

Allow guests from outside the University, eg not having a Career Account, to participate.

I would love to be able to leverage the ability to integrate a teleconference line in with the meeting, but if there's a charge for it, I can't use it.

A way to test connection ahead of time. A way to see EXACTLY what participants are seeing. Now, I set up ANOTHER computer and join the meeting as a monitor so I can glance over and see what the user's are seeing. / Connect from any device: smartphone, tablet, gramma's old Windows 95 computer, behind a corporate firewall. / Better after hours support from iTap. My class runs from 7-9 pm in the evening for only 8 weeks or less. If something goes wrong at 7:05 my participants and I are out of luck and we


34 | P a g e

don't have time in the course to make the missed material up. So I have a ECN tech support person on standby during that time but he has a life too and if things are going well he doesn't sign in.

Browser independent.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 308


Text Response

Cooperative Extension Service

Asdf

Asdf

TLI

ECET South Bend

College of Technology Statewide

ECET

FNR

YDAE

Statewide Technology

Agriculture Information Technology

AGIT

Animal Sciences

Extension

Entomology

HHS Extension

Extension

AGAD

ABE

Extension

Extension

Ag Administration

Extension

Mechanical Engineering Technology

Coll of Technology – Statewide

CLA

College of Ag

Animal Science

AGEC

Purdue Extension

BTNY

Ag college

HLA

Agry


Extension HHS

Botany and Plant Pathology

Extension


35 | P a g e

Health and Human Services

BTNY

Botany and Plant Pathology

Horticulture and Landscape Architecture

Extension

Nutritioin Science

Extension Service

HHS

Extension

College of Technology Statewide

Nursing

College fo Ag

Animal sciences

HDFS

Entomology

Csr

Youth Development and Agricultural Education

HLA

Nutrition Science

YDAE

HHS

Abe

Field Extension

HTM

Animal Sciences

Agronomy

Agronomy

Extension

Animal Science

Animal Science

College of Technology, ECET

OISC

Extension

Statewide- Kokomo

Statewide

Psychological Sciences

Extension - Area V


Purdue Extension

CES

Agricultural Communication.


Agronomy

C&IT

ANSC

YDAE

Agricultural & Biological Engineering


36 | P a g e

Nutrition Science

FNR

Extension

Entomology

Statewide Kokomo

Extension

Extension Educators/County

HDFS

Human Development and Family Studies

College of Health and Human Sciences

HK

YDAE

Agriculture

SLHS

Food Science

State Chemist

Statistic Value

Total Responses 432


22. You stated that you primarily use web conferencing for

${q://QID6/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}. Do you also use web conferencing for other types of work

(${q://QID6/ChoiceGroup/UnselectedChoices})?

# Answer

Response %

1 Yes, I also use it for teaching

50 12%

2 Yes, I also use it for research

43 10%

3 Yes, I also use it for administrative work

59 14%

5 Yes, I also use it for both

49 11%

4 No

231 53%

Total 432 100%

23. Do you have different needs for that type of work, and would you be willing to answer some of

the survey questions again to inform us of those different needs?

# Answer

Response %

1 Yes

27 13%

2 No / my answers above are sufficient

174 87%

Total 201 100%


37 | P a g e

24. Rate the importance of each web conferencing feature to other work (other than

${q://QID6/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}):


# Question This is a must-have!

It would be nice to have this feature.

I might use this

occasionally.

I don't need this

feature.


included.

Total Respons

es

Mean


18 3 0 0 0 21 1.14


14 6 0 1 0 21 1.43


17 4 0 0 0 21 1.19


15 7 0 0 0 22 1.32


10 8 3 0 0 21 1.67


9 11 0 1 0 21 1.67

14 Share your screen 11 7 2 1 0 21 1.67

15 Allow attendees to control your screen

3 6 8 2 2 21 2.71

8 Share a pre-recorded video

9 9 2 1 1 22 1.91


13 4 3 1 0 21 1.62


10 Draw/write on a whiteboard

10 3 5 2 1 21 2.10


4 5 4 7 1 21 2.81

16 Live polling of attendees

10 3 6 2 0 21 2.00

17 Force a web page to open on your attendees' computers

3 4 6 8 0 21 2.90


12 6 1 2 0 21 1.67

19 Prepare materials and 5 6 7 2 1 21 2.43


38 | P a g e

chat with other hosts/presenters in a "backstage" area


8 7 4 2 0 21 2.00


7 8 4 1 1 21 2.10


8 10 2 1 0 21 1.81


2 3 7 7 2 21 3.19


5 9 3 3 1 21 2.33


2 6 5 6 2 21 3.00


4 7 6 2 2 21 2.57


11 7 3 0 0 21 1.62

29 Reusable meeting URLs 10 9 2 0 0 21 1.62

25. How often do you use web conferencing, other than for

${q://QID6/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}?

# Answer

Response %


5 22%

2 Once a Month

6 26%

3 2-3 Times a Month

9 39%

4 Once a Week

3 13%

5 2-3 Times a Week

0 0%

6 Daily

0 0%

Total 23 100%


# Answer

Response %


20 87%


16 70%


4 17%


39 | P a g e


12 52%


10 43%

6 Windows Phones

4 17%


1 4%


2 9%

9 I don't know.

2 9%


# Answer

Response %

1 Adobe Connect

20 87%


2 9%

3 Cisco WebEx

5 22%


7 30%

5 Google Hangouts

4 17%

6 Skype

12 52%


2 9%


Smartboard

Livestream, Windows Media web streaming

28. Describe your typical non-${q://QID6/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices} uses of web conferencing

software:

Text Response

Group meetings for planning and preparation...discussion and strategizing for future work and program development.

Group meetings for proposals

We are trying to come up with a workable live webcasting solution to connect high school students to real scientists on campus in order to encourage them to pursue a career in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math). We have not had a great deal of success on this matter.

running an online, synchronous class with about 20 users. it includes live interaction with 3D modeling and data management tools. Adobe Connect does not handle this well at all.

Normally I am working on group projects for the University or learning and training in relation to my job.

Attend online training offered by departments in West Lafayette.

I typically use it to share files live, and to share a whiteboard live.

Research (Topical Webinars)

We survey users to track how they use what we teach, and how it impacts their professional activities. We also solicit input for presentation topics.

Committee/planning meetings at state and Area levels.

Statistic Value

Total Responses 10


40 | P a g e

Survey Analysis Number respondents – 495

Departments represented – Questions 9 and 20

62 respondents indicated their department in question 9 and 99 indicated their department in question

20. Due to differences in respondents reporting, departments were combined into colleges to determine

college and administrative unit respondents. All colleges have some representation, and several

administrative units. This does not, however, indicate use by college/unit.

Responses to question 9:

College/Admin Unit # Respondents

College of Agriculture 18

College of Health & Human Science 9

ITaP 5

Krannert School of Management 5

College of Technology 4

College of Engineering 3

College of Liberal Arts 3

College of Science 2

College of Veterinary Sciences 2

Physical facilities 2

Center for Instructional Excellence 1

College of Education 1

College of Pharmacy 1

Development 1

Libraries 1

OTC 1

Purdue Calument 1

Student Affairs 1

Student Success at Purdue 1

Responses to question 20:

College/Admin Unit # Respondents

College of Agriculture 60

College of Health and Human Sciences 20

College of Science 1

College of Technology 13

Krannert School of Management 4

College of Liberal Arts 1

Frequency of use – Question 15

53% of respondents use web conferencing infrequently – once a month or less

Only 21% of respondents use web conferencing once a week or more


41 | P a g e

The infrequent use of web conferencing by the average respondent tied with the frequency of

comments on the need for an easy-to-use system indicate that most respondents do not use web

conferencing frequently enough to become comfortable with it.

Implications for Pilot:

testing the ease of use and intuitiveness is critical to success

training and documentation must include set-up and basic functions

Type of use – Question 1

# Answer

Response % 1 Teaching / Learning

203 41% 2 Research

92 19% 3 Administrative work

200 40%

Total 495 100%

Devices used – Question 6

81% of respondents use Windows PCs. However, in the comments section 9 people noted that a

web conferencing system should be available on a large variety of devices including smart phone

and tablet

Top Ranked Features – Question 11

These top features were used to determine the vendor comparisons.

# Question Total Responses Mean

4 Share voice via a headset or computer microphone 432 1.33

1 Upload a file (e.g. PowerPoint or PDF) for display 432 1.41

9 Chat with attendees 432 1.46

5 Share live video (web camera/video camera) 432 1.56

14 Share your screen 432 1.58

13 Share files with attendees (allow download of files) 432 1.76

12 Record your web conference sessions 432 1.79

7 Grant attendees other rights at your discretion (such as screen sharing, voice sharing, or uploading files) 432 1.84

28 Usable without installing extra software 432 1.92

6 Allow attendees to share live video 432 1.99

29 Reusable meeting URLs 432 2.02

18 Restrict who can enter the conference room 432 2.04

8 Share a pre-recorded video 432 2.10

22 Integrate with a teleconference line 432 2.13

21 Bring attendees in from other systems (e.g. Skype or PolyCom users) 432 2.21

10 Draw/write on a whiteboard 432 2.23

23 Reports on session attendance and recording viewing 432 2.37

16 Live polling of attendees 432 2.50

Implications for Pilot

The top items in the list were added to the vendor comparison chart


42 | P a g e

Analysis of Comments – Question 12

The full list of comments is available in the appendix. However, the following themes emerged:

20 comments specifically stated the product should be easy to use

In addition, 15 people mentioned preferred products with 8 specifically mentioning Skype and 5

Google Hangouts

13 comments mentioned dependability and reliability

13 comments stated availability needs ranging with the majority of these mentioning location

(“Our students should be able to log in at any location - NOT forced to come to a lecture room

to get a remote presentation”) and installation (“Many academics do not have administrative

rights to their networked machines, so if there are any plug-ins/downloads/etc. they must be

installable without administrator approval“

12 people commented on quality – of these, 10 specified audio quality

9 comments referred to devices, expressing a need for PC, Mac, tablet and phone use

IP Video devices used - Question 17

28 out of 34 respondents use Polycom

System Currently Used – Question 18

82% of respondents use Adobe Connect.

51% use Skype

56 respondents specified ‘Other’ with the most frequently listed as:

o Blue Jeans – 9

o Polycom – 7

o Lync - 5

Implications for pilot:

Skype is mentioned frequently and preferred by many due to “simplicity and broad availability” however

it was also mentioned as unreliable. A campus-wide solution should consider these needs.

Describe what types of web conferences you attend – Question 19

308 responses received, some with multiple types of use

163 respondents use for teaching or training

213 respondents use for meetings

Implications for pilot:

Although we often think of the administrative use of web conferencing, use for teaching and training is

almost as frequent. A frequently mentioned use was for interviewing students. A system which provides

functions for multiple purposes should be considered.


43 | P a g e

Ranked features list

Vendor Comparison M

AN

DA

TOR

Y

Active directory integration: the ability to populate meeting rooms and assign permissions using AD groups.

How does your product handle firewalls and NAT transversal?

Minimum of 150 participants

Share voice via a headset or computer microphone

Upload a file (e.g. PowerPoint or PDF) for display

Chat with attendees

Share live video (web camera/video camera)

Share your screen

OPTIONAL FEATURES Value

Comparative cost 10

1 Upload a file (e.g. PowerPoint or PDF) for display 10

9 Chat with attendees 10

5 Share live video (web camera/video camera) 10

14 Share your screen 10

13 Share files with attendees (allow download of files) 9

12 Record your web conference sessions 9


9

28 Usable without installing extra software 9

6 Allow attendees to share live video 8

29 Reusable meeting URLs 8

18 Restrict who can enter the conference room 8

8 Share a pre-recorded video 8

22 Integrate with a teleconference line 8

21 Bring attendees in from other systems (e.g. Skype or PolyCom users) 6

10 Draw/write on a whiteboard 6

23 Reports on session attendance and recording viewing 6

16 Live polling of attendees 6

25 Integrate with appointment scheduling (e.g. Outlook) 6

19 Prepare materials and chat with other hosts/presenters in a "backstage" area 6

27 Change and save meeting room layouts 5

15 Allow attendees to control your screen 5

24 Integrate with classroom lecture capture system (e.g. Boilercast/Echo360) 5

26 Integrate with Blackboard / Kaltura 5

17 Force a web page to open on your attendees' computers 5

11 Break audience into groups (break-out sessions) 4

Active directory integration: the ability to populate meeting rooms and assign permissions using AD groups.

10

Accessible interface: meeting rooms should be navigable by screen-reading software. The web conferencing software should be Section 508-compliant.

10

Ability of system administrators to log in as any user. Being able to see the software with the permissions and content of a specific user helps the troubleshooting process.

4

Does your product support Continuous Presence? If so, how many endpoints can be on screen at once?

8


44 | P a g e

How many screen layouts do you support? Can the end user configure his or her layout independently of Host?

4

What audio and video protocols are used for transport? 8

What type and level of encryption is available? 10

Is Desktop Sharing stream encrypted? 10

How does your product handle firewalls and NAT transversal? 10

Reports? Can you provide list of pre-built or canned reports if exists? Can end user get reports himself for his meetings or events?

8

What is maximum number of users that can participate in one meeting? 5

Is there a maximum number of meetings that can be active at once? 5

That is average connection speed of calls in Kb/sec? Give rates for all ranges, including Audio only.

5

Does your product do transcoding of any kind? 5

Does your product support ability to Record events? What is format of audio and video(MPEG4?)? Can those files be moved, copied or used outside your product and still function.

8

Do you offer both on and off-premise solution? 4

Does your product work on Mac, PC, iOS, Android, Linux? 8

Does your product work within Browser or stand-alone application? If Browser, does it require a plug-in or Extension? What browsers do you support?

8

Does your product integrate with other products? Which ones? 8


45 | P a g e

Gartner Magic Quadrants Web Conferencing:

Unified Communications


46 | P a g e

Websites reviewed for product comparisons The following web sites were used in our determination of which web conferencing products should be

considered.

Online Meeting Tools Review (2013). Rating and comparison of online conferencing and webinar

software: What they offer, what they cost. Retrieved from http://webconferencing-

test.com/en/online-meeting-home

WebConferencing.org (2013). 2013 Web Conferencing software report. Retrieved from http://webconferencing.org/

Wikipedia (2013). Comparison of web conferencing software. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_conferencing_software

Focus Research (2010). Web Conferencing Comparison Guide. Retrieved from http://www.usdatavault.com/library/web%20conferencing%20comparison%20guide.pdf

http://webconferencing.org/articles/choosing-the-best-web-conferencing-software-for-your-business/

http://webconferencing.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_conferencing_software

http://www.usdatavault.com/library/web%20conferencing%20comparison%20guide.pdf


47 | P a g e

CIC Product Use Results of survey April/Mar 2013 of current web conferencing tools supported and used by CIC schools -

Summary:

9 – responses Enterprise products 6 – Adobe Connect 2 – Blackboard Collaborate 2 – Google Hangouts Used products All over the place Currently actively reviewing options: Purdue MSU Iowa

Count What WEB conferencing products do you support?

What web conferencing products do your faculty and staff use?

1 Beck, Annette L <[email protected]>

a. We centrally support Blackboard Collaborate as an instructional web conferencing tool (site license)

b. Our Division of Continuing Education uses Collaborate, but also has a smaller instance of Adobe Connect with 150 concurrent licenses

c. We also support Polycom, Microsoft Lync, and Lifesize (Express) centrally, but many colleges also have their own units and do their own support

d. These higher systems are becoming less and less demanded

e. Many users are moving to Skype for one-one calls

f. Our hospital side uses Go To Meeting and a couple of campus meetings also have small licenses for that

Many users are moving to Skype for one-one calls

Ironically, we just convened a

meeting yesterday afternoon to discuss the instructional uses

a. Mostly, IT Collegiate Directors in the room

b. Our Blackboard Collaborate contract is due July 1st

c. Blackboard is no longer developing for self-hosted clients the things they are for cloud customers

d. If we stay with Blackboard, we will most likely move to the cloud

e. We will do a full RFP in the next couple of weeks and then review results

f. My gut feeling is that we will stay with Blackboard and move to the cloud

g. We do a lot of international and rural state-side connections and Blackboard has a proven lower requirement for bandwidth


48 | P a g e

2 Christopher Ament <[email protected]>

We provide Adobe Connect as an enterprise wide service. We also support Google Hangouts as part of our Google Apps implementation.

Localized use runs the gamut from GoToMeeting, WebEx, etc.

3 Zakhem, Michael <[email protected]>

We centrally support Adobe Connect. We are currently in the process of looking into expanding or changing our centrally supported system(s) to take advantage of some of the new technologies that are out there.

The systems used on campus are all over the place from Skype and Google hangouts to GotoMeeting and Vidyo.

4 Cole W. Camplese <[email protected]>

Enterprise wide Adobe Connect.

Faculty, staff, and students can use that but also make heavy use of Skype, Google Hangouts, and Webx.

5 Griffiths, Robert <[email protected]>

Enterprise Adobe Connect. Some faculty use Skype, google hangout.

6 Sean DeMonner <[email protected]>

The only centrally supported solution at Michigan is Google Hangouts, but several academic units have Adobe Connect and/or WebEx licenses.

Individual use is all over the place.

7 Brian McNurlen <[email protected]>

At Wisconsin, Blackboard Collaborate is part of our suite of centrally supported tools.

Individual use is all over and we don't have good data.

8 Ellis, Kate <[email protected]>

we use Adobe Connect quite extensively for both teaching and administrative purposes. The Collaborative Technologies group also supports Cisco Movi, soon to be named Jabber Video

I'm sure some still use Skype, Google Handouts and other third party tools.

9 Reid, Pat <[email protected]>

Adobe Connect Skype, Google Hangouts

http://collaboration.iu.edu/index.shtml




49 | P a g e

Demonstration Script The following script was sent to each vendor requested to provide a demonstration…

1. Assume a user has a PC or Mac with the basics: a functioning OS and browser, with Flash and Java

installed. Demonstrate the steps that user would take to use your product.

2. Demonstrate your mobile apps (at least Android and iOS). Allow us to download the app and join a

session with our own devices.

3. Demonstrate streaming webcam video, from multiple cameras if possible.

4. Demonstrate VoIP audio.

5. Demonstrate your product’s echo cancellation ability by showing a conversation between a two

individuals, each on a separate laptop and using that laptop’s built-in speaker and microphone.

6. Demonstrate your teleconference integration. Either allow us to call in, or allow us to listen to a call

via VoIP.

7. Demonstrate screen sharing.

8. If your product allows presenters to give control of their screen to a participant, demonstrate that

ability.

9. Demonstrate PowerPoint sharing.

10. Demonstrate the flexibility of your meeting space. Can presenters move and resize components?

11. If your product can accept users from other conferencing systems, demonstrate that process with a

system of your choice.

12. Demonstrate break-out sessions.

13. Demonstrate your product’s reporting capabilities, including aggregate reports and reports on

individual users and meeting rooms.

14. If your product integrates with Blackboard Learn, demonstrate that integration.

15. If your product integrates with other systems, demonstrate one other integration of your choice.

16. Demonstrate how your product behaves if a preferred port is blocked on the client

network. Demonstrate how it behaves if all preferred and required ports are blocked.

17. Demonstrate the recording and playback of a session.

18. Demonstrate the playback of a session recording on a mobile device.

19. Demonstrate the editing of a recording.

20. Demonstrate the transcoding and export of a recording to a non-proprietary video file.

21. Questions:

a) Does your product work on PCs with roaming profiles implemented using UNC folder

redirection?

b) Describe your licensing options.

i) What are the meeting room and concurrent user limits of each license?

ii) How many meeting rooms and concurrent users can your system hardware support? What

is the maximum number of concurrent users your system has hosted successfully?

iii) Is your full feature set divided between separately-licensed products? If so, describe the

differences between your products.

iv) What are the data storage limits of each license?

c) What are our options for authentication?

d) How is teleconference integration achieved? If we use our own teleconference line, is there an

extra charge?


50 | P a g e

Accessibility review

From: Brusnighan, Dean A.

To: Reid, Patricia A; Holmes, Ben

Subject: results of accessibility testing of web conferencing tools

Date: Thursday, November 21, 2013 7:38:15 PM

Hi Pat and Ben,

I reviewed the accessibility of the following web conferencing tools. In order of most accessible to least, they are:

WebEx

Saba

GoToMeeting (I did not review GoToTraining, but anticipate accessibility would be similar)

If Adobe Connect accessibility were ranked with the above, I would place it at number two.

Summary

WebEx accessibility was quite good for both screen reader users and keyboard only

users.

Saba accessibility required installing JAVA Access Bridge and editing a file in a command line. A typical user would need assistance doing this. Accessibility was not intuitive

and was inconsistent (perhaps operator error?).

GoToMeeting was not accessible. A Citrix community thread indicates they have no plans

to address accessibility issues of their product.

http://community.gotomeeting.com/gotomeeting/topics/accessibility -11t79f

Adobe Connect is relatively accessible. Ohio State has an excellent site describing how it can be operated by a screen reader user.


I can provide you with much more detail about my testing and results. Just let me know.

Thanks for your patience while I worked through this project. Dean

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dean Brusnighan

Assistive Technology Specialist

Purdue University, Young Hall

155 S. Grant Street

West Lafayette, IN 47907 -2108

Phone: 765-494-9082

[email protected]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

mailto:[email protected]


http://community.gotomeeting.com/gotomeeting/topics/accessibility-11t79f




51 | P a g e

Team testing results Cisco WebEx

When using the WebEx annotation tool on top of a PowerPoint, you can’t advance the slides.

There is only one presenter at any one time. The baton can be passed quite easily, but only one person holds that role at any given moment.

WebEx requires an add-on for recording viewing:

Recordings also require Java for viewing, which may be an issue for some users.

During recording playback, there is a table of contents which allows skipping forward and backward through the recording.

WebEx automatically mutes attendees who are sources of feedback (this was seen when testing the iPad app).

The WebEx iPad app allows for sharing of webcam and documents:

Saba

You cannot adjust audio while talking and listening – it mutes you during the adjustment.

The difference between the Add Content button and the Add Content drop-down menu is not clear. They have two different functions, but appear as one.

Animation on PowerPoint slides isn’t supported.

PowerPoint slides sometimes show up larger than the share area; the instructor may have to scroll back and forth to see the whole slide.

When trying to screen share, the Java applet sometimes crashes.

Sometimes requires a Java update (when other Java-based services have not) to get past this Java loading screen:


52 | P a g e

Break-out rooms don’t allow the leader to visit individual rooms.

The break-out room highlight indicates that break-outs can be expanded and collapsed, but clicking the arrow (see “Room 1” below) doesn’t collapse the menu:

Clearing the whiteboard sometimes locks up the room.

There is an option to turn on all cameras, as well as one to turn on all mics. Neither of these works reliably.

The color picker sometimes freezes when you try to pick a new color.

When using the drawing tools, focus is changed to the text box selector.

Some group members were completely unable to activate audio sharing, after 20-30 minutes of trying. Most of the IDC session was spent trying to get audio to work reliably.

Saba uses the Java Deployment Toolkit, which is often blocked by Firefox:

Contextual menus sometimes pop up where they shouldn’t (see upper left):


53 | P a g e

The Saba iPad app doesn’t allow for sharing of webcam, screen, or documents. Presenters are

able to demote other presenters to participant status, and request a share (if the requestee is on a PC or Mac), but no other presenter privileges are available via the app.

The chat cannot be cleared. If something objectionable were posted in the chat window, that text would be available until the end of the meeting.

The Add Content process sometimes locks up the entire meeting room for the leader who is trying to add.

Upload of PowerPoint documents requires an active PowerPoint installation. Saba uses PowerPoint to convert ppt files to image files for broadcast. This process happens automatically unless PowerPoint opens with a pop-up notification. In those cases, the process hangs until the user finds the PowerPoint window, and clears the notification.

Ampersand symbols in meeting names cause the meeting invitation system to malfunction (invitations are truncated at the ampersand, and so don’t include the meeting time or URL).

Uploading files sometimes does not work, giving this cryptic message:

Blackboard

The chat cannot be cleared. If something objectionable were posted in the chat window, that text would be available until the end of the meeting.

Audio is of poor quality (muffled and muddy and sometimes choppy). Collaborate does, however, perform Chipmonking (speeding up audio to catch up after a short network interruption).

The Collaborate iPad app doesn’t support the Web Tour feature

The Collaborate iPad app doesn’t support sharing webcam, screen, or documents. There are no moderator privileges available in the app.

Collaborate has lots of settings and options, which can be overwhelming.


54 | P a g e

PowerPoint is needed when you upload slides, as conversion is done on local machine. PowerPoint must be closed prior to this process or this error is shown:

Detaching the component panels causes glitches. Resizing of the window is necessary to fix the

problem:

Citrix There was some distortion of audio from an off-campus location. This was probably due to

insufficient bandwidth.

It is difficult for the instructor to know what is being shared during screen sharing. The Citrix windows, which may be in various places on the instructor’s screen, are not shown to participants.

Only one thing can be shared at a time. Two screen shares would not be possible, for example.

Tests can’t be reviewed by attendees, only by the organizer.

Recordings are made on the local machine. They must be uploaded to Citrix in order to be available to viewers.

Recordings are in a proprietary format, and converting to WMV takes a long time (real time or longer). In one case, we killed the conversion process, and the original recording file was corrupt.


55 | P a g e

Pilot Testing Results

Participation

The team contacted customers across the university by advertising to the Adobe Connect users group

members. In addition, each team member contacted faculty and staff in the departments they represent.

The following is a breakdown of the 98 people expressing an interest in participating in testing the pilots:

2 regional folks,

3 ECN,

4 administration (bursar, financial aid, admissions, registrar),

12 ITaP,

4 PEC,

5 Statewide Tech,

17 Purdue Extension,

2 Libraries,

10 AgIT,

2 CERIAS,

3 Engineering Professional Education,

About 30 in various academic departments.

Most participants received multiple email reminders (up to seven based on when they joined the

testing). In addition, basic instructions were made available as well as demos.

Participants were asked to complete a survey for each product they tested.

Cisco WebEx

11 surveys completed, 11 on-campus, 0 off-campus, with an average of just over 5 participants each.


56 | P a g e


57 | P a g e

Saba

7 surveys completed, 7 on-campus, 0 off-campus, with an average of almost 6 participants each.


58 | P a g e


59 | P a g e

Collaborate

4 surveys completed, 4 on-campus, 0 off-campus, with an average of 3.7 participants each


60 | P a g e


61 | P a g e

Citrix GoToMeeting

10 surveys completed, 7 on-campus, 3 off-campus, with an average of 6 participants each


62 | P a g e


63 | P a g e