Signal-android: UI for starting video calls is difficult to figure out

[Be-ing]

I have:

• [x] searched open and closed issues for duplicates
• [x] read https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/wiki/Submitting-useful-bug-reports

---

Bug description

After instructing the user I was communicating with how to enable the beta video calling in his preferences, we still had difficulty figuring out how to start a video call. He called me and I saw him on video, but he could only hear me without seeing video from me. After a minute of confusion, he told me to press the video camera icon on my phone while in the call, which initiated me sending video.

Steps to reproduce

• Have WebRTC voice/video calls enabled on both devices
• View conversation

Actual result: There is no indication of any way to initiate a video call, or that Signal supports video calling.
Expected result: A video camera or other clear icon would be next to the phone icon at the top of the conversation to initiate a video call

[motatuc]

Well, I personally dislike the idea of having the call initiated with video enabled by default.
It's good to have audio only by default. And if someone wants video - it can be enabled on demand.

Coming to that point: How much more easy should it be to start the video? All that one has to do is pressing the video button. It might be hard to make it more simple :)

[snaggen]

The original request seems to be for an additional call button for Video calls, next to the regular call button. And only the Video call button would initiate video by default.
I think this is a great way to make video calls easier, and still keep the regular audio only calls.

[ghost]

All that one has to do is pressing the video button. It might be hard to make it more simple :)

This is some weird doublethink language here. The point is that pressing 2 buttons is a not as simple as pressing one. It's silly to force the user to start an audio call in order to get to a video call, and the video call button is next to the speaker and mute buttons, which is confusing since those buttons have completely different functions. Two of the buttons affect the call in progress and one of them starts a new kind of call, yet they are the same size and are right next to each other.

I agree with Snaggen and the OP that there should be a video call button next to the audio call button. However, I would like to add one thing: the receiver should be explicitly shown what kind of call they are getting. It should say "Audio Call" or Video Call" according to what the caller presses so the receiver can reject a video call if they are not ready or not willing to appear on video or reject an audio call if they prefer a video call.

[snaggen]

@motatuc Well, yes it might not sound very difficult to press two buttons... but if I intend to start a video call with you. I then start with making an audio call, then I have to upgrade my side of the call to Video and then tell you to do the same... Ok, I agree that it is not really difficult to click the actual buttons, but the whole procedure is not very streamlined (well, if I call my dad, getting him to press the correct button might actually be difficult... ). Wouldn't it be easier if I just clicked the "video call" button, then you see an incoming video call and answer?

[motatuc]

I got your points and some of them convinced me. But I am not sure about a two button solution.

[wizardofid]

I prefer the possibility to upgrade an audio call to a video call when necessary or possible. So each side could decide if it is OK for him to enable video. Maybe i just want to show my partner something. Then i might enable video for a moment without needing him to switch over to video or us both to end the audio call and start a new one in video mode. I like the interface as it is.

[snaggen]

@motatuc Yes, knowing what type of call you are answering is important. And for Video Calls it might also be good to have a way to answer with no video... but it might be confusing to have a second answer button...
@wizardofid But an extra video call button doesn't prevent you from calling audio only and upgrade your side. We are not talking about having the video button inside the call to behave differently, only to have an additional video call button you may use if you intend the call to be a two-side video call when you are making the call.

[ghost]

@wizardofid We are simply talking about initiating a call. Nothing more. The video button in the chat makes things obvious to people. Signal is about bringing secure communication to the masses and this makes it easier and faster for people to start a video call.

During the call, we can have a more distinct looking button that changes to video and vice versa, of course with a notice asking the other caller to confirm the change with a tap.

[Be-ing]

@snaggen:

And for Video Calls it might also be good to have a way to answer with no video... but it might be confusing to have a second answer button...

I thought about this, but I don't think it would be a great idea. The UI for answering should be an extremely simple binary choice. There will be situations when the receiver can't or won't want to think about whether to answer as a full video or as an audio call, for example in a stressful situation or when the receiver is distracted. Also, many people will accidentally answer a request for a video call with an audio call, then get confused why it isn't a video call and struggle to actually have a video call as I did initially. If they don't want a video call, but do want an audio call, they can refuse the video call and call back with an audio call.

[UNIcodeX]

I like it the way it is now. Take the call, then decide whether to initiate / accept / decline video. Not hard IMO.

[justin-sleep]

I also prefer the UI as it is. It's not what people are used to, but it feels more natural than segregating audio and video calls. I agree that it's not how people would initially think video calls are started, because of how other applications isolate video calls away from audio calls, but after you tell them "hit the button that looks like a camera to turn on your camera" they instantly understand in my experience. I've had video calls with people who generally give up when they run into a technical or UX obstacle, and this isn't one of them.

+1 for just keeping a unified "Call" option.

[Be-ing]

If the UI has to be explained for basic functionality, that is a bug. That's nice that you can explain that @justin-sleep, but how are two people talking to each other through Signal who don't know that going to figure it out? How are they even going to know they can make a video call, especially if they'll have their phone up at their face for the audio call and not see any buttons on their screen?

[Be-ing]

I prefer the possibility to upgrade an audio call to a video call when necessary or possible. So each side could decide if it is OK for him to enable video. Maybe i just want to show my partner something. Then i might enable video for a moment without needing him to switch over to video or us both to end the audio call and start a new one in video mode. I like the interface as it is.

To clarify, I am not suggesting that the ability to toggle video on/off from a call that started as audio-only be removed (or that a video call can't be switched to an audio call during the call). That is indeed a useful feature. But it should be more obvious how to start a video call.

[nonlinear]

Maybe a caller can choose to initiate either audio or video... And receiver can pick up, cancel (as usual) and asecodwry funcionou (smaller area) offering switch ("answer as audio" if video or "answer as video" if audio).

This way it empowers both users, allowing receiver to refine initial option.

[automated-signal]

GitHub Issue Cleanup:
See #7598 for more information.