Hacker News Reader

Comment by cupofpython | Hacker News Reader

>If you were offline, there was no away message, and no way to send you a message at all.

This was a feature.

email already existed. phone calls already existed. AIM provided new information about a persons availability in that they were currently online and open to communications. If I didnt want to talk to people, I could not sign on to aim. Respecting peoples personal space was a default.

Now it is ambiguous. Does this person want to talk right now? They are online, but that means absolutely nothing now.

View on HN

True - but is falling back to email really that big of a difference? It just means more work and one more username and protocol to remember. We could have better "offline" modes available on current messengers while still not just completely tossing the message.

>one more username and protocol to remember

maybe i am old, but the messenger service is the "one more username" to remember. i would drop messenger services before i drop email. messenger services tend to be linked to email accounts anyway - so im sure low friction solutions could be developed.

  The point is to isolate sync communication from async to preserve the simulation of live conversation as an option online.

the issue is compounded because the person who sent the message may not be available when i see the message. Messenger was developed for people to talk at the same time. Honestly, it seems like product overreach for it to accommodate any async communication.

Async communication is a very important form of communication and should be managed appropriately and not shoe-horned into live chat UI's.

IMO async should always be threaded. If I would be changing my messaging behavior based on whether or not someone is online (which is sort of necessary to avoid confusion) - I would rather optimize that behavior change with two different (UI) systems than trying to use one chat box and one log for it all.

If someone is not in the room anymore, you cant talk to them. Full stop. Leaving the room is a signal that needs to be respected. It is one of the few powers individuals have in an actual conversation. Getting rid of simulated "rooms" online was a step backwards. Even if it happened during a simultaneous step forward for mailboxes.

Not arguing for or against email over chat - just pointing out that there's more to remember. Not to mention that you might share one form of communication with someone you just met (say a stranger you give your AIM handle) who then would not know your email at all.

The whole point of all chat apps is that you are not physically in the same room already so I'm not sure that we need to be perfectly replicating that. And even so - if you are in a room where you know the person will be returning - you can easily leave a hand written note if you really wanted to.

I am not sure where that quote is from (The point being to isolate sync and async) as I do not see it in the article unless I missed it. I think a lot of this is also indicative of a generational divide - I was an early user of AIM for example and I always remember it being relatively async. There was not a huge expectation that just because you were online and not away that you were always at the computer and constantly replying.

All of this just generally seems like dissatisfaction with the social issues that have developed around all of these technologies in modern times - people EXPECT way too much. Too much is normalized. This is stressing people out. And I think we need to start there to fix it instead of trying to band-aid the problem with tech fix.

If you give someone your email instead of your AIM then there isnt more to remember. You would email each other instead of using an always on messenger service. AIM was a place you logged in and logged out of, and all conversations were contained within those signals. It was a different experience which made it something worth remembering a new username for. If we take away the signalling that made it different than email, then why use a messenger service at all?

The current messenger systems seem designed to increase expectations, and then we wonder why people expect too much. they offer things like "online, away, busy, offline" but in reality no one cares. It all ends up just being part of your pile of notes that you will respond to when you can. So it might as well be email, which is built around that level of expectation.

I mean, I dont mind having to remember separate email and messenger accounts. I am just saying that if you are going to bring it up as a problem, then the solution is to drop messenger accounts, not email, because they barely provide anything new anymore over email except ambiguous expectations and stress

Also, I'm not sure why that point came through like a quote, it was just the point I was trying to make.

Have you tried to give someone your email in the past few years? Most people will just give you a blank stare for a few seconds before sort of accepting and then never contacting you. Email has almost become the equivalent of snail mail

Coincidentally I asked for some friends emails over the weekend to put together a viewing party for a show release next month. it was received well.

In general, I exchange phone number, email, or a social media account. Email is still the predominant item of exchange for all professional networking I am familiar with

Probably highly industry dependent but I would generally agree. Professional networking probably would be email and linkedin at the top. With so many people using gmail sharing your google account address also loops you into chat and all their other services which adds a whole nother layer.

yeah, linkedin for sure - although i usually dont exchange it directly as much as someone randomly inviting the other to connect after we talk to each other in person

Reply on news.ycombinator.com