That dark pattern drives me crazy. I use Zoom on Linux and prefer to use it in browser and I still almost always miss the link after having done it several times.

That must be a very dark pattern. I didn't even know it was possible to run Zoom in a browser, and even now that I know I can't figure out how to do it. What's the secret?

You need to click download zoom on the meeting launch and give it a second, it will show a “having trouble?” message and let you open in a browser.

Wow, that is evil. Thanks!

I haven't tried it lately, but last time I tried it around a year ago, if you try to use the web client and the moderator hasn't shown up yet, you have to solve a Google ReCaptcha every couple of minutes while you're waiting, or it kicks you out.

I usually try to go with the charitable interpretation, but when the dark patterns start to stack up that high...

The web UI is severely limited compared to the desktop client which is why I suspect they do this (even though I disagree with it).

I've had some very confusing meetings because I worked at a company that required us to use web, but the presenter wasn't and what she was seeing didn't match us which led to some confusing scenarios. Things like the grid view weren't there last I used it and some of the more advanced presenter features just don't do anything for web iirc

Oooh, so that's why I've never ever seen the buttons for breakout rooms or to participate in votes? And there's nothing out there that says that's the reason. Any searches I did to find out why these things don't work for me were met with 'here's how to do it'

It can be enabled/disabled by your company's Zoom administrator.

Just replace the /j/ in the URL of the page with /wc/join/, and you should be in the zoom web client.

You can even prepare your links this way so you're there to begin with.

If you use Firefox I recommend https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/zoom-redirect...

I don't really get the religion around the video platforms. I use three (Zoom, Google Meet, and Bluejeans) on a regular basis and they all seem simultaneously decent enough and imperfect on my network on a given day. Teams is fine too but I rarely use it.

From my experience in Latin America, Zoom tolerates network problems better. I've connected from or have had attendants using DSL, Cable, 3G, 4G (Not LTE) and call in phone audio.

yep I think alternatives have improved but pre covid i traveled all over the world for work and the big thing was Zoom worked the best on iffy connections and also played best with multiple companies IT systems

I really liked Bluejeans (I find its audio/video quality to be far superior to the alternates) but it really didn't do well over jittery/slow connections. Zoom swept in and through people's refusal to use anything but what they're familiar with it chased out Bluejeans and we got rid of it.

So much fiery passion about these random tools, haha

Perhaps I am jaded, but as of yet I have never used a browser-based video chat that worked well. Invariably connection issues arise which I have only rarely experienced with Zoom. My best explanation is that a native app has more to work with in terms of codecs and connection management than a browser can offer.

So to this end, that "dark" pattern is ultimately to a user's benefit and they are truly better off if they use the native app. If Zoom did not do this, they would pay the cost in terms of support and perceptions that the service is not reliable, in much the same way that Hangouts is unusable.

Having said that, you should be able to acknowledge that you do want to use the browser and don't want to see the pattern again.

This dark pattern may benefit some users, however there is a trade-off between video quality and data security. Different users have different preferences/needs between these two aspects of a video call service. Tricking people into selecting one option is rarely done out of concern for the interests of the end user. I would personally be much more convinced that I am benefiting from installing an app that has a history of data security issues if they gave a clear and up front explanation of why this benefits me.

FWIW, my work uses Google Meet running through Chrome and it gets the job done for remote collaboration. I would actually be curious to see some figures on the difference in performance between Browser and Desktop. I imagine that you can do a few tricks for compression and buffering on with a native app that would not be possible on a browser, but I haven't seen a big difference in terms of my ability to have a meeting.

Hangouts is all but dead, and Chat/Meet suck by comparison... at one point, I loved Hangouts, one comms app to rule them all, SMS, chat, video conf, messaging, even google voice... then it all fell apart.

Half the time, I can't join a meet with video, or the video works in the "test" window, but as soon as you join it's broken.

I'm mostly okay with Teems though.

Browser zoom drops my audio after several minutes making me disable and reenable audio to get a few more minutes of audio. Annoying when it happens mid sentence, but that's a price you have to pay for using Zoom.

> As someone who runs Zoom via the browser (they do deploy a dark pattern to discourage this behavior but there is no good reason to trust them) I find that Hangouts and Teams are both solid alternatives in terms of AV quality. Would be happy to see some actual data on this claim

Some anecdata, recently i had to switch from Teams to Zoom, with the same person, and the audio quality was drastically better on Zoom for both of us.