[sf-lug] suggest 'Tip: It best to use Chromium/Chrome' ... Jitsi ...

[Michael Paoli]

Hmmm, interestingly, I've had (generally) much better success with
using Jitsi with Firefox, than Chromium.
Maybe a slightly broader "tip"/suggestion?  But, uhm, no,
not whatever browsers someone still has on their
Microsoft Windows 95 installation ... hell no.

Maybe somewhere Jitsi has a "browsers reported to (not) work
with Jitsi" ... and we could leverage/link to that?

... oh, also issues with audio feedback and/or (excessive)
background noise and such.  In addition to doing muting selectively,
to isolate, Jitsi also gives pretty good indications of audio volume
levels coming in, and in at least some modes, will auto select and
highlight whichever participant is making the most sound/noise (in
theory the one doing the talking).  Anyway, those "hints" can also be
used - often to more quickly isolate the source of the
audio feedback or background noise ... but selective muting is
certainly best for positive confirmation ... though the other indicators
may often more quickly narrow the field of (prime) suspect(s).

> From: "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] Switch meeting from Jitsi to Zoom
> Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 17:32:33 -0700

> Michael, suggest http://www.sf-lug.org/ front page have 'Tip: It best to
> use Chromium/Chrome or
> <a  
> href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#Blink-based">relatives</a>'
> if SF-LUG continues to use Jitsi Meet.
>
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> -----
>
> Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 17:25:11 -0700
> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> To: [a member]
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] Switch meeting from Jitsi to Zoom
> Organization: If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
>
> Hi, [member]!
>
> Quoting [the member]:
>
>> I made the suggestion, and I am using windows/10 and zoom often with
>> no issues
>
> Well, good.  Maybe SF-LUG will be happier with Zoom.  It's good to know
> that switching would help at least one person.
>
>> I don’t know the browser or the specific issues other than unable to
>> connect via wireless as well as not having the camera work.  Also
>> there was an echo issue when someone talked and a 10 second delay
>> while speaking.
>
> For the record, here's what I was talking about:
>
> Jitsi Meet (which Bobbie keeps erroneously referring to as 'Jitsi') uses
> the IETF's WebRTC protocol as the A/V transport.  Some browsers don't
> even attempt to do WebRTC, especially older browsers.  The best Web
> browser support for WebRTC is consistently reported to be provided by
> the Chromium Web browser and its proprietary offshoot, Google Chrome.
>
> A number of other Web browsers based on Chromium's 'Blink' engine, such
> as Microsoft Edge and Brave Browser, are probably really good, too:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#Blink-based
>
> It's reported that _recent_ Firefox versions have good WebRTC support,
> but only the recent versions.
>
>
> The 'not having the camera work' problem I would guess is a standard
> teething problem with local system security.  The first time you connect
> from a Web browser to join an A/v session that needs accss to the
> microphone or webcam, you typically need to give permission to the
> browser, i.e., there's supposed to be a dialogue that says something
> like 'A Web page on site meet.jit.si wants to connect to the microphone.
> Give permission y/N?'  And likewise for the webcam.
>
>
> All of the above are things that, frankly, the SF-LUG people ought to
> have helped you with, but SF-LUG tends to really badly suck at helping
> people solve technical problems.  But for the record, both of those
> matters -- browser WebRTC support (the reason why Chromium/Chrome is
> best) and giving security permission to connect to your microphone and
> webcam -- are matters we've gone over and over and over.  SF-LUG
> should have walked you through that.
>
> 'Unable to connect via the wireless':  Not a complaint, but I have
> insufficient information to help on that -- but whatever this was would
> logically affect any A/V technology exactly the same, and is a separate
> problem.
>
> 'Echo issue when someone talked and a 10-second delay while speaking':
> Probably one participant had a feedback problem, on the participant's
> local computer, looping sound back from the loudspeaker to the
> microphone.  This happens on Zoom, too -- and is a problem unrelated to
> the choice of A/V technology.
>
> The root cause of _that_ problem is basically people using loudspeakers
> and microphones badly because they are novices at videoconferencing,
> e.g., they are using a really crummy laptop whose speaker and microphone
> are practically adjacent.  A _careful_ participant would join a
> videoconference using earbuds / headphones rather than the PC's built-in
> speaker.  If everyone on the conference does so, then this syndrome
> cannot occur.
>
> I've been at an SF-LUG online meeting where some new person joined and
> immediately there was a sound-feedback problem -- because that person
> committed the aforementioned basic mistake of using a cruddy
> speaker/microsphone setup and _not_ using earbuds/headphones.  This was
> the first one where Bobbie had finally figured out how to join us, and
> she (irrationally) immediately guessed that _my_ laptop was the cause.
> (It was not.)
>
> The interesting bit:  Nobody there tried the utterly obvious way to
> identify which participant was sending the feedback signal:  You mute
> for a few seconds each participant in turn, starting with the most
> recent person to join.  The moment feedback goes away, that's the person
> sending the junk audio signal, and you tell that person 'Please leave
> yourself muted except when you need to speak, and please consider using
> earbuds rather than a loudspeaker that can loop immediately around to
> your microphone.'
>
> Anyway, it's a Videoconferencing 101 problem, that should have been
> dead-simple to solve, but, hey, this was SF-LUG, so they didn't even
> figure out how to start.  Instead, Bobbie went with 'Make a bad guess
> based on zero evidence that the highly technical guy did it.'
>
> I hope that helps.