Web Conferencing Blog

Last weekend, the biggest update in the six-year history of webconferencing-test.com went live. Almost all aspects of our portal have been reworked to enhance the value and the usability of the site:

• Compare Tools Pro now allows visitors to compile a tailored dossier of data from our 30-plus tool tests, offering detailed information on over 80 functions and criteria for all solutions. The service (which is subject to a charge) supports organizations in simplifying and accelerating the expensive and time-consuming process of evaluating web conferencing platforms.
• The new Compare Tools Free option offers initial guidance for those searching for the right software. As the name suggests, this service is free of charge. Portal visitors can select the tools they are interested in and compile a compact, comparative overview of test results for their shortlist. Aggregated results are given for the following categories: functionality, usability, meeting setup, software installation, cost transparency, security, and system requirements.
• What’s more, webconferencing-test.com now includes a guide on how to select the right solution (Evaluation Guide), and new test criteria for video- and audioconferencing functionality. A new, featured ranking offers a quick overview of the videoconferencing functionality of each web conferencing solution.

Why have we re-launched the portal?

When webconferencing-test.com first went live back in 2006, we began by testing the five most popular online meeting tools and presenting the results in a table. Since then, the number of virtual meeting offerings we test has risen to over 30. Our goal was to bring transparency to this market – which means ensuring we consider as many solutions as possible.

As the years went on, our portal was limited by one key factor: Only results for the top five tools were shown in detail, broken down by specific criteria. We just assumed that for the majority of users, complete results for the five best-ranked platforms would be enough. Why should we deal in detail with those that didn’t make it into the top five?

A flood of feedback from portal visitors told us why. As it turns out, there is significant interest in accessing in-depth test results for lower-placed tools, too – for a number of good reasons. Perhaps you have already worked with a certain tool (and would like to see how your experience compares to our findings), or maybe you are looking for very specific functions, which are provided by one of the tools ranked 6th or below (such as web conferencing software for visually impaired users, for example).

Moreover, it has become clear to us over time that it is not just self-employed professionals and smaller companies that use our website as a starting point for selecting a web conferencing platform – many larger organizations do, too. The feedback from these enterprise users can be summarized as follows: our portal saves them the time and effort of identifying all the relevant players and painstakingly compiling the facts and figures for each provider.

But for these larger organizations, too, the fact that detailed results were only given for the top five solutions limited the usefulness of our comparison. In fact, when it comes to enterprise implementations, there are special criteria – that we could not take into account – that often play a key role. For example, companies may wish to shortlist a provider who is already a preferred supplier, or a solution that can be easily integrated into the existing IT infrastructure. Prime examples include IBM (in 11th place at present) and Microsoft (ranked 8th and 17th).

If our analysis of the benefits and limitations of the previous incarnation of webconferencing-test.com stands up, then the introduction of the Compare Tools Pro service should significantly boost the attractiveness of our portal.

But why don’t we offer this enhanced service free of charge? After all, commercial considerations were not our main motivation when we originally launched our portal. There is a simple answer. This is primarily an experiment to find out how willing professional web users are to pay for valuable content on the Internet. Moreover, if the results are positive, we will naturally be glad to recoup some of the considerable ongoing investment we make into conducting and extending our tests.

We hope and believe that we are offering our visitors excellent value for money. Our approach is the opposite of the conventional model for generating revenues with advisory content. IT research and advisory companies such as Gartner exploit their high brand awareness and reputation to sell their research results at a steep price.

Take the following example: Gartner sell its annual “Magic Quadrant for Web Conferencing” report (18 pages) for US $1,995.00. This publication deals with twelve web conferencing providers, without a detailed analysis of the functionality and usability of the solutions. As a niche portal, webconferencing-test.com may not enjoy the same brand awareness, but offers far more detailed content on the facts and features of each web conferencing solution. If you want to buy the test results for all 34 tools we have published information on, it costs just US $69.50 during the introductory period, and US $139 after that. And in reality, the vast majority of visitors pay much less. For example, if you already have a shortlist of four “favorites” and want a quick, fact-based comparison, you can generate this dynamically for just US $9.50.

So you only pay for what you actually need – sounds like a fair deal, doesn’t it? We look forward to seeing whether the 10,000 visitors to our website every month agree. And we would be delighted to hear your feedback on our brand new portal.

In June we included a brief survey on webconferencing-test.com asking for the reasons visitors come to our site, how they got there and if they got what they expected. We have gotten quite a number of responses – thank you all! – and would like to present what our visitors had to say.

Looking at the reasons visitors came to our site revealed the following:

Most visitors (31%) were on the hunt for generic information about web conferencing to get familiar with the technology and different ways of online collaboration. 18% were on the verge of purchasing a solution and checked our site to confirm their buying decision. And we were happy to see that 8% of the visitors were current users of a web conferencing solution seeking tips and tricks on using the software in question. In addition, 21% chose our site to begin their search for a web conferencing solution and 9% were looking for news on the online collaboration market. The remaining 13% had their own reason to visit our site…

Of course we got many suggestions for tools to include in our tests, such as ICU Live! from ICU Global. We always appreciate such hints since the market has expanded greatly and it is impossible to keep track of all online collaboration software. The feedback we got relating to this issue, i.e. that our overview is not complete is correct. But some tools don’t appear on our list for the following reasons:

• Target group: If an online meeting tool vendor requires you to make changes to your IT infrastructure the tool is very likely not for our focus group – small to medium sized businesses or the self-employed – who are best of with ready-to-use solutions.
• Popularity: Finding a tool that works for you is great. But if you are one of the 10 total users it just may not have an appeal for a broader audience and we need to prioritize our resources when it comes to testing.
• Performance: Some tools are simply bad. Full stop. No need to include them in our ranking.

Another bit of feedback was that our pricing info was not detailed enough and that we should incorporate pricing models for more usage scenarios on our site. Availability of pricing information is an important factor for us as we also state in our test approach. That being said there is no way for us to depict all the different usage scenarios that might come into play for the various customers. What we depict is the overall cost model we find on the vendors’ websites and if you have special requirements you will be better of contacting the vendor of your choice directly.

Thanks again to all participants for the helpful feedback. We will continue to try and state all the information on online collaboration tools you might need and appreciate your feedback should we have missed anything.

Many companies currently still use NetMeeting. However, the tool’s shortcomings make it very inconvenient for continued usage which is why those companies are now on the lookout for an alternative web conferencing solution.

Incompatibility with Microsoft Office 2010 is only the last of issues that have made usage of NetMeeting quite tedious. If an online collaboration tool does not allow you to demonstrate a simple PowerPoint presentation there is something seriously wrong.

The whole issue started a while back when Microsoft decided to no longer support NetMeeting with the release of Windows Vista – NetMeeting had been a part of the Windows OS since Windows 95. After Vista came out companies using NetMeeting found workarounds to keep the tool running but now even those solutions will no longer work.

Why did NetMeeting become so popular in the first place one might ask. Well… it was there. Simple as that. Since it was integrated in Microsoft’s OS companies made use of it for their internal online collaboration even though the tool never really was good. So the end of life offers a twofold opportunity for current NetMeeting users:

• Companies can select an online meeting solution that enables collaboration to go beyond the firewall and allows for meetings with external participants without compromising security.
• Prospective tools can be evaluated for the exact functionalities needed to guarantee ease-of-use.

Online collaboration tools come in many colors and it is essential to look at the basics before purchasing a specific solution. Would a unified communication solution such as Lync be best or rather a standalone solution such as LiveMeeting? And then of course there is the question of hosted vs. on-premise.

With its demise NetMeeting poses some serious challenges to the companies that use it. On our site you can read about the different approaches the vendors of web conferencing solutions take.

As Deutsche Welle reports, German air traffic controllers are likely to go on a six-hour strike beginning Tuesday at 6 a.m. if it is not called off at the last second.

This strike would cause quite some chaos for all those currently on vacation and of course those who need to travel on business. Just as last year – when that Icelandic volcano that is impossible to pronounce correctly offset travel throughout Europe – business travellers can make the best of their situation and take their meetings online if they cannot make it to their destination.

With a laptop entire presentations can be held and those travelling light with either a tablet or their smart phone with them can at least attend meetings and follow what others are presenting. Check out our ranking of online collaboration tools that will enable business travellers to hold or attend a meeting even if they are stuck at an airport or decide not to travel at all.

Due to Eyjafallajökull’s activity, air traffic throughout Europe will continue to face restrictions. And even if planes are allowed to fly again throughout Europe by tomorrow, there will very likely be delays for the rest of the week.

In various media it has been stated that business travelers, companies, and even governments are looking into video conferencing technologies to keep things running. While video conferencing certainly is an option to create a meeting-like situation – in that you can see whom you are talking to – web conferencing gives business travelers additional options to successfully conduct business meetings when on the road.

Web conferencing tools allow participants to quickly set up meetings and then share documents, show presentations, chat and have an audio conference at the same time.

In our evaluation of online meeting solutions we present a number of tools and give you information on functionalities, user friendliness, and cost. So if you are looking for a way to have a meeting while you are waiting at the airport – or to prevent you from having to fly altogether – and feel you need a different set of functionalities than provided by video conferencing, you will very likely find a fitting tool in our evaluation of online collaboration software.

Business travellers will have to be very patient this weekend. Flights will be cancelled at least until Saturday morning and even then no one seems to know when the situation will normalize itself. The volcano is still active…

The bright side of this chaos: If you have a meeting scheduled you do not have to miss out on it and perhaps let a good opportunity go. Simply invite your contacts to a web conference and make sure that your business does not suffer due to the situation. Check out our evaluation of  online collaboration tools and find the solution that suits your meeting requirements best.

Good look with your further travel plans – and your online meetings.

Search the German Wikipedia site for “Webinar” and you will get an article explaining among other things that the word is a composite of “Web” and “Seminar”. Search the English site for “Webinar” and you will be redirected to an article on “web conferencing” whereas the German site offers an additional article on web conferencing next to webinars. So obviously the English version of Wikipedia treats “webinar” and “web conference” as synonyms in contrast to the German version. Since Wikipedia is claimed to reflect the knowledge of the masses it is pretty safe to assume that there exists some confusion regarding the web conferencing terminology.

Agreed, there is no clear-cut distinction, but since we evaluate web conferencing solutions on webconferencing-test.com we feel that the basic terms and criteria must be defined, so that we can begin with an impartial set of distinctions when testing software. So here’s how we use the terms:

A web conference typically is a non-public online meeting with focus on collaboration. One person is the formal host, but the role of presenter can easily be switched along with keyboard and mouse control. Desktop sharing is the preferred mode for collaboration since it allows for easy exchange of information, access to various tools, and editing of files. Attendees are invited individually by the meeting host – a good software offers an invitation functionality. Other, more asymmetric forms of online meetings can also be regarded as web conferences, when e.g. a presentation is held in a rather informal setting, with few attendees who can give feedback at any time.

In a webinar the roles of presenter/moderator on the one side and attendee/listener on the other side are fixed. The attendees are invited individually by the presenter and are passive viewers/listeners throughout the entire webinar. Possible forms of giving feedback are polls, a chat function, and  question rounds that can be initiated by the moderator only. An open registration to webinars is also possible. Important functionalities are reporting – who has attended? – and archiving of the entire webinar so that it can later be published on a website or sent to the attendees.

On webconferencing-test.com we focus on software for actual web conferences and point out tools that can also be used for webinars. For more in-depth knowledge and additional infos on webinars you can visit Ken Molay’s Blog.

This leaves us with webcasts as our final term, which are another subcategory of online meetings. In general, a webcast is a live or recorded event that targets a large audience. There are no interactive elements offered at all and attendees can often participate without registering. Multimedia elements – especially video – are featured heavily in webcasts.

So, this is how we differentiate between web conferences, webinars, and webcasts. Please feel free to comment if you disagree or if you feel we have hit the nail spot-on.