Zoom Consent Cam

Design Process

My previous camera concept was based on zoom fatigue and I this is an extension on following the FRIES acronym. I think most if not all of us has experienced zoom fatigue and the linked article goes through it a bit more in depth but one of the key points it mentions is that it is an attempt at replicating of a face to face interaction where it almost feels like we can hear each others thoughts. It can get intense over longer periods and It carries this panopticonesque characteristics just because of the setup.
On the other hand speaking out into a void of dark screens isn’t ideal either. So I wanted to explore what was in between. I played around with the clm tracker to see if we could still maintain useful information that we express through our facial features in a less invasive way. the route this takes is that it provides the option to turn on or off or adjust according to your preference.
Adding to the process from the previous project, I wanted to make this one as flexible as I could. By that I mean having the option to opt out of the function, or pause the feed or even turn off the camera. Which might seem contradictory to my earlier point about trying to find a solution that does not involve cameras being off. I think it is important to cater to as wide of a need as you can and it is perfectly fine if someone does not want to have the camera on.
I also wanted to be transparent, which I tried to tackle by explaining the concept and having links that are available through all the scenes. The user can go through the links to get more detail should they want to know more about a specific feature. I ended up removing an initial link to the p5.js site because it was starting to get too crowded with buttons and links

User test

Since I wasn’t able to use this concept on an actual zoom meeting, I sent the program to two people on opposite ends of the video call spectrum. First user (U1) is constantly in zoom meetings but never has the video turned on, the second is a teacher (U2) who has to always has to have her camera on. Snippets of the feed back below:

U1: Yeah dont really use my video for most of my meetings but when I have to use it I would just use that normal camera option.
U1: I get what you are going for because when I talk with others who have their videos turned off its bizzare
M: say if this was tweaked to be more accurate and better integrated, would it be something useable to you or your collegues?
U1: ya I think so. It is a bit artsy and informal but the idea is quite nice. I would be open to use it with informal meetings as is


U2: I had not thought about consent when it comes to my digital appearance/participation. It made me think more about tracking and surveillance and highlighted that one can convey expression while keeping themselves unseen/safe. It’s an interesting idea to think about zoom and how it affects the kids in my class.
M: How do you see this in relation to teaching younger students?
U2:It is possible some of them might feel more comfortable with this approach but it might be too abstract or distracting. Kids can be very animated and the facial recognition seems limited in that area (ref screen shot), would work best for uni?
M: Do your kids get tired of zoom? Ir is it set up so they get breaks and do activities that they don’t mind
U2: Our schedule is 9-9:45 on zoom, 9:45-10:30 off zoom, 10:30-11:45 on zoom, 11:45-12:45 off zoom, 12:45-2:00 on zoom. So breaks and short zooms and the day ends at 2pm
U2: I find it really hard to be on zoom for a long time it’s painful its such a great approach!

Reflection

My overall design's reflection of the FRIES methodology is based on 2 main concepts. Information and flexible interface. Information in the begining of the screen gives an overview of what I am trying to achieve nad it provides the links for further reading should the user be interested. These links are always accessible and so are the options for hiding/showing your stream. Feedback from the user test bought up an interesting point. It sounds obvious once you realize it— NSA being the prime examples of non consensual camera interaction—but it is very easy to forget about digital consent. Our habits online is accustomed to being taken advantage of at the behest of the people in charge, it is a strange concept to be asked for our consent online. Sure there are ‘accept cookies’ etc etc but we’ve become so numb to those, and it seems like a battle not worth fighting. A key concept of this project was that it should not be a binary choice, people aren’t either happy or sad, energetic or tired. Why are cameras either on or off? What are other options that we can think about that doesn’t resort to filters or bunny ears or sunglasses? Though this is an exploration into zoom fatigue that grew to encompass consent and transparency, it starts a conversation into options that might be worth looking into. It is zoom based but with technology spearheading the battle for decentralized forms of learning, I believe exploring the need to cater for comfort and privacy of individuals is just beginning. What would interviews look like where we dont get put into boxes based on our name or physical appearance but based on our skillset and presentation? Would some people benefit and learn more if they did not feel like they were being constantly surveiled? I think these are important points to talk about and configure moving forward.