I also enjoyed my time online this morning (for me!) and thought it was quite a dynamic event. Getting us together in small discussion groups was also an interesting idea - happens frequently in f2f sessions - and the fact that we lost sight of the topics gave us the chance to talk about anything we felt like. In my group, Jenny, Tony Redmond and I introduced ourselves and then talked generically about the type of work we do online. Jenny is in Tasmania and one of the things she does is give online computer training to students in rural communities. There is a f2f support, because they are absolute beginners, and she feels this is a must. The feedback is generally quite positive. I don't really remember what Tony said. Bad student, me!!! :-(
I agree with you about first timers and (bad) sound quality, but it is also positive and realistic when they see that not everything always run on wheels. That way they won't think it's their inexperience, or that it only happens to them, when they try to implement something and it doesn't work 100%. It's good that they get a lot of good stuff, but also a little of less good stuff. ;-)
Michael, I'm sure that if your session hadn't been as collaboratively informal as you planned it to be, you would have covered more ground. The approach you chose - I liked it! - gave you more flexibility and I'm sure your audience left with a lot of food for thought!
Many of us know from experience tha it's not easy to deal with so much going on online and f2f, so one of the elements/groups necessarily is less attended to. Quite natural! In this case your priority was definitely the f2f audience. And since most of us online knew each other quite well, and kept making those text comments we're so used to, we felt at home: Like fish in the water! :-)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]