TABLE 5.
Commentary on most and least successful experiences with online real-time methods.
| Most successful | Comments | Freq. | Least successful | Comments | Freq. |
| None of the employed platforms was succesful | 9 | All of the employed platforms were unsuccesfull | 5 | ||
| Zoom | Good (sound) quality (n = 3); not used simultaneously; latency issues | 6 | Zoom | Latency (n = 4); cannot be used simultaneously | 7 |
| Facetime | Good sound quality; good for giving lessons | 3 | – | ||
| Personal set-up | 2 | – | |||
| Messenger | Not used simultaneously | 2 | Messenger | Latency (n = 2); cannot be used simultaneously; bad sound quality | 3 |
| Not used simultaneously; good sound quality | 2 | Latency; bad sound quality; connectivity problems | 3 | ||
| JamKazam | 1 | – | |||
| Skype | User friendly | 1 | Skype | Latency (n = 4); bad sound quality; connectivity problems | 8 |
| Jitsi | Not used simultaneously | 1 | Jitsi | Cannot be used simultaneously | 3 |
| JamTaba | Not used simultaneously | 1 | JamTaba | Not in real time | 1 |
| Google Hangouts | However, sound issues | 1 | Google Hangouts | 1 | |
| Microsoft Teams | 1 | Microsoft Teams | Latency of video; not user friendly | 4 | |
| Jamulus | Easy to use; latency ok | 1 | – | ||
| Whereby | Easy to use | 1 | – |
Summary of provided commentary on respondents’ experiences with the least and most successful platform in mind.