[aantix]

I think there's some subtleties that are taken for granted with a face-to-face conversation that simply become awkward when engaging in a remote conversion with latency.

With face-to-face I can avoid a majority of the interruptions because I can notice a slight change of a facial expression, e.g. a mouth slightly opening, eyes lighting up, that alludes to them beginning to speak.

But with a remote conversation, that noticing of expression suffers from the same latency issues as audio, so I'm reading the emotional cue way too late.

[learc83]

It gets easier. I’ve been working remotely for a decade, and eventual you learn to communicate differently to mostly avoid these issues.

[aantix]

Agree. I’ve been working remotely for the past five years. It can definitely be done.

But I’d prefer an in person conversation any day vs the CB Radio-like feel of today’s conferencing.

I don’t want to throttle my thoughts. I want quick successions of comments going back and forth.

Simply not the experience right now with videoconferencing.

[learc83]

I usually don’t have to throttle my thoughts with video conferencing unless there are more than 1 or 2 other people on the conference. But when there are more than 3 people in a conference room, I have to throttle my thoughts there as well.