TrainingRINA
Active Contributor
Joined 6 years ago
User Profile
User Widgets
Contributions
Grouping of polls, tests and material in Library
Library stored materials, polls, tests and evaluations are solely identified by Name (and a date) With various types of training events it it hard to determine for which such belong as well there is no revision version possible in the identification. The lack of such requires a creative naming just to reasonable manage this, and with various trainers / admin this is nearly impossible to mange in a proper way. Suggest that two tags is added in Library elements, and columns added for these two tags to sort by in listings. - one tag named group, where you can add a group / type name for type of training event it belongs or if it's a general used element. - one tag named version, where you can add a version or revision ID, as a date of upload or creation does not necessary identify version / revision of an element. This will facilitate creation of training events, minimize errors of attaching non applicable elements to a certain event, and as well management / quality control of elements stored in the Library for training.Attendee monitoring being active
Hi It would be VERY beneficial for trainers to have attendee monitoring of if actually being active participating and not focused on other applications e-mail, browsing etc. that the GoTo training app is in focus, ins such way that each participant has a green dot or yellow/red dot in not having focus on the training window/app.204Views0likes1CommentRe: Grouping of polls, tests and material
Thanks, but this does still require a creative naming by the individual trainer, meaning no consistency. A functionality where a row with a drop down choice or if not possible a text field to assign a group/name for poll, tests, material still needed, and a row for version/revision ID as the date of upload does not necessary indicate version/revision but merely when someone uploaded the file or created the poll or test...590Views0likes0CommentsSuggestion to TIMER View at Tests - Polls - Group Break out
Hi For the Timer function in GoTo Training Kindly suggest to add Timer view in right top corner for the delegates to see at Polls - Tests - Group break out This should be visible no matter if in browser or in application mode on PC (similar function to count down warning box when ending group work, which is very nice) This could as alternative be a default box/part/element/area of the delegates right hand menu bar. Reason(s): a) When the delagtes are in one of these tasks Polls or Tests or Group break out, time keeping is a challenge, you cannot see who is missing to complete, and polls and tests are limited to percentage of completion, and as trainer you will very often need to remind them by "microphone" (to all) when reaching end ... such repeated verbal reminders can be stressing to delegates who could be "fighting" with completion. b) It's easier for delgate to manage and plan their assiged task's (Polls - Tests - Group work) when they can actively monitor time left c) It would facilitate the trainer's management of time for course/training delivery by actively enable a visible timer to tasks where the delegates are working "by them selves"Monitoring submission of test for each participant during the test
Kindly suggest to add a monitoring for the trainer to see live who of the participants has submitted a test (or poll) as function added to the existing % submitted test (or % poll submitted) . This could be an additional column for the active participant list that flags when submission is performed, and the column being cleared after the test/poll is completed, or alternatively as a different symbol at the attendance warning column, which reset after closing of the test/poll. Many time experienced that when a few are struggling, not attending /not responding (and left the connection on), or just being lazy, you are occasionally enforced to close the test/poll before reaching 100 % to continue, meaning you are as trainer challenged with addressing this actively/pro-active, and left to retrospectively actions after end of session / population of statistics reports.Re: GTT: Switch to Desktop Option Missing?
A little add on comment The comment ensure quality in the browser version The tolerability level / business risk appetite by relying on Browser versions and development/changes by Google Chrome or for that matter Microsoft Edge is extremely high. It's very well known these players naturally promote and change standards as found fit for their own software applications (Meet/G suite, TEAMS) functionality and browser integration and changes standards as found fit.2.8KViews0likes0CommentsRe: GTT: Switch to Desktop Option Missing?
Hi The removal of desktop version in GoTo Training is a very bad decision, especially as the "new" alternative solution is not in place, functionalities missing, and connection quality in browser versions are generally poor. Having done some training, the experience with the Browser version in Chrome has always come out as lower quality for sound and web cam etc. As well the experience by participants has been with critics of the browser version. Might be sufficient for GoTo meeting (Seminar and QA), but for GoTo training the desktop version has been the one (only one) in reality. I certainly hope the management & technicians not just looks at / has target of simplicity to manage and develop, and hopefully NOT with aim for mobile devices for GoTo Training. To be on a mobile/pad small screen, and entire idea of providing a training course with participants on the run with focus on other things, hard to concentrate, small screens etc. is misguided. Maybe this is feasible for seminars and meetings etc. but not for providing proper training course delivery. Resent incident example: I had a course delivery (now today over 3 days), two first days went fine with desktop version, good connections, good web cam clarity, good sound and no crashes, then this morning it changed at start of the session with only web versions available for participants, sound problems, poor connections for some of the participants (web cam and sound), and the quality and complaints from participants reached a point where we ended up using TEAMS on third day, where all participants got clear connection/sound etc. Break out groups etc, sharing of documents all fine... It's sad to say, as the GoTo improvements with TRAINING desktop version was getting to a point where other vendors have less, but bottom line, if GoTo is degrading quality/stability of connections of streaming web cam and sound by choosing a browser platform without ensuring this equally or improved, and/or removing key functionality in GoTo training, then we need as company to look for another vendor.2.8KViews0likes1CommentRecommended streaming speed FPS - Resolution - Bit rate
Hi Can anyone advice the "recomended" / optimal Frame rate FPS, Resolution and bit rate to use (I'm using manycam virtual webcam software to combine material with green screen and personal appearance by web cam - "as in class room" ) i.e. if the stream is typically distributed by GoTo hardware/servers/cloud to recipants at 25 fps 720p with target bit rate approx 1500 or lower, then higher settings at streaming/upload is useless, especially if streaming up with higher resolution and frame rate than the GoTo software at trainers PC is allowing anyway, or at GoTo servers/services performing the distributing, then rendering/converting to lower distribution rate or resolution by hubs of hardware/software will have a natural potential risk of loss and/or blurring etc. I have noticed raising to 1080p 30 Fps and 3000 target bit rate does not improve on recipent end, on the contrary, some details "font's" sent seems a bit more distorted compared to the upload view. (at 720p sending it appear "just" blurred at recipent end). As well noticed, refresing of the browser in the recipents end of line can change the recipent recieved resolution, "apparently" negotiating speed with the GoTo server/service. Best case optained is slightly blurred at recipent compared to the "clear" 720p at sending end, i.e not ever getting a clear720p (1280x720) at recipents for webcam recipt. Well aware that recipents internet connection, if slow, inconsistent or large latency etc. will have impact, and the Server/service potentially will lower the "quality", however this tested at GoTo training seesions with wired stable upload (+100 Mb/sec internet avilable for upload) and with one recipent, just to make sure it's not due to GoTo server/services being loaded multiple recipents ( the recipent having a stable +300 Mb/sec internet available for download ). I would like to know what settings are reasonable to stream / upload by GoTo web cam, please not what the "commercial" selling point of max peak GoTo cabability, but merely the reasonable average for consistency.Solved1.2KViews0likes1Comment