Summary.

• ATLAS (Claire):
  • Installed and paid a full system that is up and running
  • Would like to keep an ATLAS-specific channel, including branding and different entry-points for visitors (e.g. specific email)
  • Can currently accommodate max 8 visits per month
  • System is not overused and could be shared with others
  • Cohabitation between virtual visits and onsite visits; bottleneck is ATLAS visit point which is used for both
  • Need to address double booking issues as there is no crosstalk between CERN booking system and ATLAS Secretariat
  • Propose to train one person from the Visit Service and integrate in their system
  • Would like to integrate multiple sites in a visit (e.g. Globe, fresco, others)
  • ATLAS would be interested to have mobile cameras like CMS has but for external views (Globe, fresco)
  • Recordings of visits have variable quality, depending on the connection, the effort of post-production, and also on the choice of technology (ATLAS uses Vidyo)
• CMS (Achille):
  • Shares slots with CERN Visit Service: CMS has its own booking system with Visit Service being made aware of extra slots. 
  • Would like to keep this setup as Virtual Visits have to be coordinated with Technical Coordination and would secure entry-point for CMS-linked visits (i.e. requested by CMS researchers/users)
  • Service cavern is accessible at all times which is a great plus, and therefore less clashes with normal visits
  • Equipment is functional but a "bricolage", so more standardisation would be welcome
  • CMS also use Vidyo
  • Multiple cameras (1 fixed, 1 mobile), therefore more Manpower needed, average 4 persons (2 per camera, includes 2 guides - one fixed, 1 roving)
  • Due to manpower requirements, CMS requires audience to be at least 50 people.
  • 6 visits per month on average
• ALICE (Despina)
  • ALICE has made ad hoc virtual visits for years with laptops and iPads from the cavern when possible or from Control Room
  • Dozens of visits over the past years. Difficult to have precise stats, as not all requests reach outreach group. Rough estimate of 30-50 visits/year
  • Would appreciate support of CERN for booking, currently relies fully on secretariat. Would like to be part of a CERN-wide setup, of a CERN programme
  • ALICE is looking to develop Virtual Visits. When visitor centre is ready (in approx. one month), it will be a great help.
  • Experience during European Researcher Night with material lent by IT was very positive
  • The cost of the equipment (40k CHF) is a real obstacle. This includes webcams in the cavern.
  • There are privacy issues with filming with webcams.
• LHCb (Antonis)
  • Have a few Virtual Visit per year, on and ad-hoc basis
  • Used significantly for the Masterclass sessions; these include a one-hour virtual visit
  • LHCb is quite accessible (near Velo etc) and when LHCb is not accessible they can go to Delphi underground but currently not considering a 2 guides option.
  • Standard Virtual Visit would start in the new control room
  • Recently equipped recently (2 cameras, predefined positions, etc). There are technical issues which frequently require support (no sound etc)
  • Would like to expand, are interested in a central booking system and becoming part of CERN programme
  • Open to have external guides (i.e. CERN guides, not necessarily LHCb)
• Operational requirements (from Steve's presentation)
  • Important to support audiences which cannot come to CERN, especially through the network of collaborators of the collaborations
  • Main issues with current virtual visit setup are operational, in particular technical operations.
  • There is much interest from everyone in standardising operations part. This requires IT expertise.
  • IT preference (as explained by Thomas) is to go with remotely operable systems, as is current setup with videoconferencing across CERN.
  • There is interest in recording and editing some content, with different views on whether it should be all content, selected content and how it could be used.
• Bulgaria's experience (Teodora)
  • Target audience: 12+, students, teachers, interested in science
  • Venues with 50+ people
  • 2000+ participants, 22 locations, 37 schools in 3 years
  • Use of personal equipment (smartphones)
  • Multiple locations: SM18, CMS, CCC, Ideasquare
  • Relies strongly on volunteers
  • Virtual rooms/Guides on remote sites for Q&A allowing many schools to participate to same event and still have a chance to ask questions.
  • Public webcast is publicised via dedicated website and social media, to reach as wide an audience as possible
  • Videos of the virtual visits are posted on YouTube. One of the videos has 2000+ views (posted in 2015)
  • Importance of dynamic visits (avoid single person talking for too long, different sites, etc) 
• CERN Virtual Visits (François)
  • Visit Service is developing two types of virtual visits: guided virtual visits (subject of this meeting) and self-service virtual visits (based on virtual reality and 360 degree video technology)
    • Several scripts for 360 degree videos being prepared, to include LHC experiments, data centre, CCC, etc
    • Could complement guided virtual visits (e.g. when visits to caverns not possible)
  • Have identified following limitations in guided virtual visits: dealing with requests (separate booking systems), resources (people, time), trained guides, languages offered.
  • Proposal is to work on: integrate Guided Virtual Tours in standard offer; train current guides to help with these visits; integrate request in single booking system; develop new sites for virtual tour sites (Data Centre, etc)
• Proposal to set up 4 working groups (Ana)
  • 1. Booking System (lead by François). Some of the issues to address are (not an exhaustive list):
    • Integration/Crosstalk between Visit Service booking system and those of the experiments (namely ATLAS and CMS)
    • Entry points for visitors, to make clear which experiment is hosting the visit. Ties into "branding"
    • Try to integrate requests from and visits initiated by experiments communities, to ensure data is collected for statistics, evaluation, etc
  • 2. Technical requirements (lead by Thomas). Some of the issues to address are (not an exhaustive list):
    • Remotely-operated systems, with support from IT when problems arise
    • Or dedicated technical support. 
  • 3. Guide's training and Format of the visits (Lead by Dominique)
  • 4. Recording and Evaluation (lead by Ana). Some of the issues to address are (not an exhaustive list):
    • Options: bulk recording of all visits or selected recording
    • Make all recording available on CDS (after editing. Resources needed) or upon request (e.g. to teachers wanting to review the visit; or to guides wanting to include them in CV)
    • Use recording for guide's training: case studies
    • Evaluation: by visitors, by guides.
• Next steps:
  • Participants in the meeting are asked to say which working group(s) they would like to take part in or nominate someone for the group
  • Working groups meet to discuss and move forward on specific topics
  • New meeting soon, to bring topics together and decide next steps.