Taly Sharon, MITML I want to tell about three interactions, out of which I got two feedbacks. The first one was with Mary Farbood in MITML. The second one was via iCom with Jennica Falk from MLE. The third one, on which I got no feedback at the time of the writing of this document, was with Michael Lew in MLE. I found that I had no real media barrier, and that the information perceived by the other parties was mostly effected from my tendency to present myself in a certain light rather than from the technology. None of the three parties saw my big belly and my pregnancy until I related to it. I guess that Mary was supposed to notice it, but she tends to look at people's face, and was also tired so she missed it. The poor lighting conditions and the camera angles did not allow the parties at MLE to notice this fact at all. I think I didn't even get to discuss this at all with Michael, probably because he is a guy. Both Mary and Jennica noticed that I am ambitious and that I have high expectations from this course, as well as from myself in this respect. Mary noticed that I am nervous about delivering the baby in the middle of the semester, while Jennica did not realize it, and thought I was very confident about it. I think that happened because of the direction the talk went and not because of the technology. As Mary was tired, I tended to share my weaknesses as well. While I was mostly keeping these fears for myself, afraid that it might be an obstacle later on when teaming up for projects. Jennica felt that I think a lot before I speak and am very careful about what I say and how I say it. I think that this happened because of the technology. For me, talking using computer audio, and in English, which is not my native language, is harder. I have to put in a lot more energy into it, to speak louder and more clearly and that certainly makes me think about what I am going to say. General things about the technology: 1. Privacy - that is a problem with iCom. It is positioned so that it would be a public space, and as such, the meeting participants have no privacy at all (unlike NetMeeting, Yahoo, and other videoconferencing softwares). I noticed that not everyone was bothered by it, but it bothered me. I could feel that I was more forthcoming with Michael when we spoke Hebrew, and actually froze when a big audience passed by and stopped to look at me and Jennica interacting in iCom. 2. Audio - using the audio channel in iCom (but also in other softwares I use for this purpose) is very tiring for me. I find that I have to speak much louder and more clearly and that in a way takes out the spontaneity and makes me think about what I am going to say before spitting it out. Also I want to mention that at a certain point during my talk with Michael we lost the audio channel completely, and found ourselves waving our hands helplessly. 3. Video - the video quality was far from perfect. Lighting conditions were pretty bad, and everything seemed dark. It might be considered more romantic or intimate, but it just wouldn't let us see our partner too well. Except from the faces, I can't really tell how Michael or Jennica's figures are, and would probably have a problem identifying them from distance if I see them. 4. Scheduling - I scheduled all the "dates", including the one with Mary using email. It was difficult to coordinate with everyone, but I think it was because I don't really sit near any of them, we're all busy, and it was the last moment:) I Actually I was misled thinking that Michael was in MITML because all the scheduling was in email, and he was using his @media.mit account.