openmeetings-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "" <>
Subject Re: room type "audience" => EOL ? [ shall we delete the room type "audience" ? ]
Date Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:11:27 GMT
The reason for deleting it is not just because its a difficult to
understand that there are multiple room types. Although this is of course
an argument.
The main reason to delete it is that its simple a "historical" component
that was replaced by the room type "restricted" and by enabling the
features of that room type in all room types. But instead of immediatelly
replacing it we just maintained all room types. That was an error that we
should try to correct now from my point of view.

The room type "audience" once was designed to have a room type where the
teacher has more *control about audio/video* (1) and the* video is bigger
by default* (2) and the *user list is displayed in squares instead of list
view* (3).
(1) *more control about audio/video*: Meanwhile we have separated right for
audio+video and the moderator can mute unmute in any room type. No need to
make an extra roomtype, you have this control in all room types.
(2) *Video bigger by default*: You can now switch video size to any
dimension in all room types. No need to have an extra room type for that
(3) *Display user list as squares instead of list*: This list view has
several disadvantages and it is not possible to have more then 40-50 users
in this room type as the squares list view renders to slow and the client
will hang up. That is why we created a new room type "restricted" that can
handle 200++ users in the list and that buffers incoming events in the user
list so that it does not re-render too often.

So after all this room type is just legacy code that eats our time in
maintaining it while the reasons why it does exist just are not given

I would propose that we will disable the"audience" entry in the roomtypes
table. Audience room type had roomTypeId 3. You would still be able to use
that roomTypeId, however internally I will rewrite roomTypeId from 3 to 4.
4 is the restricted room type. That we are backwards compatible with the


2012/2/26 Andre Bueno Lima <>:
> Hello Sebastian,
>        Actually the room type "restricted" is more usual in most
> But do not believe it should be removed from the room type "audience" only
> by users having difficulty understanding the application of each type of
> room.
>        If we both understand the users, then we know that the average user
> does not have the patience to test or read about the details at the time
> usuar a new feature, such as the creation of rooms in OM.
>        If you allow me, I would suggest a second proposal: In the rooms
> created by default, allow only limited, and leave the others disabled. A
> user with more expert or other needs, would enable them manually.
>       As a testimony, I would say that I am testing the OM in the company
> work in an environment of approval, and my team has demonstrated skillful
> use of all types of rooms, as the dynamics of meetings in OM. Even more, I
> learned about the OM through two federal universities, which also comes
> satisfaction using other types of rooms.
>       Another solution to mitigate the concerns of users, would help put a
> link next to the types of rooms, and can clarify their utilities.
> André.
> 2012/2/25 <>
>> Hi,
>> the number of room types makes it sometimes hard for people to get
>> started with OpenMeetings.
>> The restricted room type is actually the better audience room type.
>> So shall we just remove the room type "audience" ?
>> Is there any VETO to delete the room type "audience" ? Stand up now or
>> .... :)
>> Sebastian
>> --
>> Sebastian Wagner

Sebastian Wagner

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message