Comment by anbotero | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anbotero | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I never truly understand issues people have with these things. I tune my notifications as to avoid true interruptions and filter most false positives by quick looking.

I see people at my office (and different companies!) saying they quit Slack/Whatever because they were getting bombarded by notifications... They had the option to notify on all messages. ¬¬

Even then, come on, I cannot believe experience hasn’t taught most of you how to handle quick interruptions. I usually just quick look at the notification to see if it’s really urgent. Otherwise it may be 7-10 minutes until I actually check the application, in case I’m doing some heavy thinking/coding session.

There are true interruptions like constant notifications, people physically talking to you about other things, and stuff, that while you cannot really tune them all out, you should be able to handle better with 2-3 years of experience. I read a lot of people on these forums with many more years not being able to cope with that.

I will die still unable to believe it was the norm, and not the exception :(

> I never truly understand issues people have with these things. I tune my notifications as to avoid true interruptions and filter most false positives by quick looking.

You've answered your own question. The product is distracting by default.

The savvy user can cut down on the distractions by configuring notifications, teaching themselves how to scan messages, etc., but if there's one thing we know from 70 years of writing software it's that most users accept whatever defaults you give them. Sometimes that's because they don't know they can reconfigure the software; sometimes it's because they do know they can reconfigure it, but can't figure out how; sometimes it's because they know how to reconfigure it, but are too busy with other things to do so. But the underlying reason doesn't really matter, what matters is the general effect: the default experience the software provides is the experience that most users are going to have with it. And with Slack, the default experience is distracting.

> Even then, come on, I cannot believe experience hasn’t taught most of you how to handle quick interruptions.

How many threads have been posted on HN complaining about things that take programmers out of their state of "flow"? How many programmers have you met who are happy to hear their phone ring when they're working?

> There are true interruptions like constant notifications, people physically talking to you about other things, and stuff, that while you cannot really tune them all out, you should be able to handle better with 2-3 years of experience.

2-3 years studded with bouts of lost productivity is a lot of lost productivity. A product that tells me my life is "only" going to suck for 2-3 years while I learn how to use it is not a product I am going to be thrilled to use.

> How many threads have been posted on HN complaining about things that take programmers out of their state of "flow"? How many programmers have you met who are happy to hear their phone ring when they're working?

Those are what the true interruptions are about. A notification? I'm sorry, but after less than a month one learns how not to let a simple sound or notification distract you. Constant phone ringing is a true interruption; one ringing loop? Not so much.

> 2-3 years studded with bouts of lost productivity is a lot of lost productivity. A product that tells me my life is "only" going to suck for 2-3 years while I learn how to use it is not a product I am going to be thrilled to use.

Handling interruptions is about not letting them make you lose much productivity, but after all, this is for true interruptions. They will affect you, but there are ways to lessen the effect. If people allow other people to constantly interrupt them without setting clear boundaries/priorities, it's your (or your Manager) problem. I usually set things in the clear from the beginning, and after two or three times, it'll never happen again. But again, these are true interruptions: Some are necessary, and those which are not can be handled better.

Your premise is based on the intersection of "most users" and "programmers". I don't really buy that. Do you know any programmers who are hopeless with tool configuration?

Yes.

My problem (with Skype, so ok that's two problems) is people just put "hi" or "hello" and then the choice is to either ignore them and hope they'll get around to actually asking the question, or give in and say "hi" (passive aggressive or "hi, what's up" (I don't care what's up - you started it). I can't think of a polite way to say "please don't just type "hi"" without making it sound like I think I'm special, but at the same time ignoring them outright seems rude. They know I'm here because of the presence indicator.

> I can't think of a polite way to say "please don't just type "hi""

I feel like I've seen something similar as a general rule. If your company has any sort of internal etiquette guide for its internal communication tools, this should go there verbatim. If not, then it can still work to post it in certain places; for example, a slack channel where people ask your team questions.

If you're getting asked questions but your teammates aren't, then you are special! So just tell them directly. Even better, respond to the DM saying that for the benefit of everyone, such questions should be asked and answered in a public channel, so that others have a fighting chance of finding it with a search tool. This eliminates the "hi" problem entirely.

This is my biggest IM pet peeve. When someone separates their "hello" from their actual question, my attention is broken for 30 seconds to 5 minutes for absolutely no reason whatsoever until they send it.

Just ignore when they say hi. They'll eventually learn that they don't get a response. If they actually talk to you about your "rudeness" explain that you only respond if it seems urgent, and "hi" isn't urgent.

I see a few people on my team, who have "Don't just say hi" and [0] as their Slack status. I find it informative, and not condescending.

[0] http://www.nohello.com

There's a guy I work with that does this _in real life_. Let's call him Bob. Bob sits maybe 15 feet from me in the same room. We work on the same kinds of things. In this company, it's encouraged to engage with others immediately if you have a question. If they are too busy right at that moment, they will tell you and check back with you later and everyone knows not to take offense in these situations.

However, Bob pretends to be afraid of me. People walk up to me all the time when I'm working and ask questions and it's perfectly fine. But when Bob has a question, he _whispers_ to get my attention. Or he'll stand just in the periphery of my vision and literally wave until I respond. I've told him, nicely, more than once, that he can just talk to me whenever he wants. His response is always along the lines of, "well I didn't want to break your concentration" or, "I didn't want to bother you if were busy." Bob knows I don't ignore people whether I'm busy or not. I don't want to believe he does it just to annoy me but I'm failing to come up with a more logical explanation.

Sounds like he's way too considerate, polite or sensitive, trying his best to not disturb others.

Improving this style of interaction may be a matter of showing/proving that you really don't mind a more blunt approach, and in fact prefer it.

I know! And it's so frustrating, because it's so easy to just include the question as a part of the first message (e.g. "Hi! Could you help me with feature X?").

I've been trying to think of a good way of asking it. Maybe something like "Just so you know, I won't be offended if you ask the question with your initial greeting. It would actually be helpful because then I can start thinking about the answer right away. :)" Does that work?

People do this because they want to know that you're available for the conversation. Like ringing the phone.

No. They do this because they know if they just ask their question you'll ignore it because it's not important.

If they say "Hi" and wait for you to respond, now you're engaged and it's harder to ignore after they pose the question.

To carry your analogy further, it's more like calling someone and hanging up before they answer in order to prompt them to call back.

Are you, personally, saying "Hi" because you think that if you ask your question -- then your message recipient will ignore you?

I am saying "Hi" (without anything else) - to check if person is available for discussion (exactly like okusername described it).

No, "they" don't. Some people do, sure. But some people are doing as the parent mentioned; ringing the phone. Letting you know they need to have a discussion with you, so you can reply when you're ready.

Pretty true. The worst is when they butter you up a bit with, "how was your weekend?", or "The weather is pretty nice today". Like they actually care about you, ha!

Ironically, I once got feedback from my team lead that when I would start with my question without first pinging with a generic "hello", it seemed demanding.

Would you say "<Question>" or "Hi! <Question>"? The former could seem demanding, but if they're offended by latter then the situation is hopeless.

I would usually say “Question: <question>”. The latter might have been okay; after the feedback I just switched to “hey I’m stuck” or “Hey I’ve got a question” and asked the question after he replied, which he was happy with.

That's fair. I sometimes do that too, especially if the question is somewhat long and complicated (though I that point I usually ask if I can just call the person). But at least that's more than a solitary greeting.

It's this worry that causes me to prefix non-urgent things with something like "Hey, question when you get a chance, XXX".

What feels demanding to me is coworkers who will simply send a message containing my name, sometimes followed by a period. Opening slack to see just "John." (not my actual name) is somehow both more and less personal than "Hi". I believe it's mostly a language barrier thing, as it's only ever ESL speakers who do it, but it still feels like nails on a chalkboard for me.

http://www.nohello.com

> I can't think of a polite way to say "please don't just type "hi""

Here it is: "please don't just type "hi"". It's that simple. I've never had anyone perceive that as rude or negative in any way, and they usually adapt pretty quickly. If they don't learn, you just have to step up your ignoring game ;)

Yes, in my case it's "hey" followed by silence unless I acknowledge. I mean, gee whiz, this isn't a phone line dude - just spit it out already. The person in question has zero abilities to learn lessons or develop empathy so I am resigned to the idea of dealing with it or finding a different place to work.

This drives me crazy too. Would you send an email that just said "hi"? Didn't think so. Is it that hard to just say "hi, [question]"? Instead I have to reply and then wait for them to type their question since I've already been interrupted.

I usually send them this: https://www.dontasktoask.com/

I don't use Slack, but does it have something like a bot where you can have it auto-reply to messages shorter than n characters?

“Hi” initiates the TCP equivalent of the 3-way handshake

How is responding with "hi" passive aggressive? Why would someone type a potentially large question to a the abyss?

It's not the abyss, it's just asynchronous. If you make me say hi back then you have trapped me rather than giving me the option to look at your question, determine the importance, and respond at a time that is appropriate for me.

Because the alternative is to waste the time of the person you're talking to while they sit there waiting for your follow up. You're already interrupting them; no need to make it worse.

Abyss? They know I'm there and worst case scenario is they copy their unanswered question into an email to me.

Yeah I'm not sure why the slack good / slack bad discussion warrants as much discussion as it does.

It's just a communication tool. Either it works for you personally, or it does not. I don't think it deserves a weekly HN first page discussion though.

I didn't read this as a slack good / slack bad article at all.

At my current job I was asked to join a client's slack group (added without my consent) and it was a nightmare. The problems have nothing to do with notifications or interruptions, but it gives them the implicit understanding that I am a custom developer for their needs. Since they can reach me at any time, they assume that I am going to fix their bugs, add their features, etc. It circumvents what I think is the proper procedure for work. I suspect that's more the heart of why the author is saying they aren't going to join their client's slack group.

This seems a lot like you making assumptions about their expectations and/or acting on their expectations/your assumptions; rather than acting the way you think is correct.

If you aren't their personal dev, then don't be one. The only thing my presence in a client's slack means is that I (and/or the other people from my company in their slack) am reasonable first point of contact. I'm perfectly happy telling them that their problem is not one I can solve (or choose to prioritize), and that they should touch base with <appropriate person>.

I guess my story was unnecessary, but I commented that I didn't read the article the way the person I responded to (and the person above him as well). I don't understand why the top rated comment is worded in a way that sounds like the article was bashing slack because the Author of the article doesn't understand how to focus...when I read the article and saw nothing that led me to believe the top level comment was on topic. So I commented.

If I am ok to carry on this tangent we are already on, I cannot wrap my head around a scenario where it would be appropriate for a member of a SaaS company, dev/PM/CTO/QA or what have you to be in a slack channel for one of their clients. It's completely unprofessional and should be avoided.

This is mostly about setting expectations with the client. If they slack you most of the time they expect to hear back soon, or else they probably would have used email. So they opted to make it clear and just not use slack. Makes sense to me.

> I never truly understand issues people have with these things. I tune my notifications as to avoid true interruptions and filter most false positives by quick looking.

The problem isn't the notifications here. Sure, I can tune my notifications to my preference, but when you're a resident in a client's Slack the expectation is that they can directly message you, anytime, for any reason, and for any size request. Like the article says, Slack does not encourage deep and meaningful messaging – it's more like a text. I have found that opening a channel like this almost always brings with it a firehouse of small changes requested in bursts, whereas a single e-mail encourages bundling of issues and requests into minimal amounts of messages. The worst thing about Slack is the constant "10:00am: hey HBOSCH, can you do X?", "10:15am: oh, and can you also do Y?", "10:47am: and while you're at it, maybe you could handle Z? haha sorry for being crazy!", "10:49am: <silly gif>". It's so annoying.

I also tune my notifications effectively by using Do Not Disturb mode on my iPhone from 12:00AM to 11:59PM, along with the "Bedtime" feature in my alarms. This keeps my phone quiet all day, only allowing phone calls from people on my Favorites list to come through, and the Bedtime function in Alarms keeps my whole device totally silent from 10pm to 6am. But that's not helpful if a client is trying to reach me at 8am EST when they need an emergency update before a morning meeting.

> The problem isn't the notifications here. Sure, I can tune my notifications to my preference, but when you're a resident in a client's Slack the expectation is that they can directly message you, anytime, for any reason, and for any size request.

This is kind of true. I work with several partners of our ecom platform using Slack. Most of them are not that responsive, and that's fine - Slack is a chat app but it's still asynchronous! As long as people answer reasonable queries in a reasonable time (so e.g. within the working day) then it's fine. I never expect instant answers.

Manage expectations I guess?

> when you're a resident in a client's Slack the expectation is that they can directly message you, anytime, for any reason, and for any size request

Why do you think that? The client's I'm in slack with certainly don't expect that.

People are lazy. They can't get themselves to change the defaults. It's a barrier they see too high. Pretty much why iOS is great because it "just works". Designing an HCI (Human-Computer Interaction) system is really hard.

A distraction is still a distraction. Why not get rid of one if it's not needed?

I think they are best understood as the modern equivalent of circa 2000 era virtue signalling "I don't watch TV, we don't even have one in our house". Except now people do it online on HN because their IRL friends are sick of hearing them talk about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com