Can an anti-reaction person explain what they find so distasteful about them? Is it that the other person wasn't willing to make the effort to type is seen as disrespectful? struggling to see what the problem is
It may sound aloof, but I sometimes get hundreds of emails a day and it's a necessary filter.
This is no more artificial or disrespectful than a person looking across the room, catching your eye, and giving you a nod and a thumbs-up.
> "I do view it as disrespectful (more precisely, lacking discretion) that the sender decided to waste my time by making me look at and hit delete on their message."
If they'd replied with a full email saying "gotcha" or "understood" or "like it" you'd have to waste your time looking at it and hitting delete. (In Microsoft ecosystem, this doesn't happen, reactions appear on the original email like Github reactions appear on comments in issues - it's nice).
The text fallback also isn't great, I'd much rather they'd sendan email with nothing but the emoji than "person X reacted to your message". I suppose this is more corporate-compliant?
I like receiving reactions specifically because they save me time. When I get a typed message, I often take time to think through whether the sender is expecting some sort of acknowledgement (confirming that I got their message letting me know that I’m welcome to thank them again any time!) or whether it’s polite to terminate the exchange by not responding. Overall, I spend far more time than I’d like second-guessing my words. When I just get a reaction, it serves as a form of acknowledgement that doesn’t demand further response and frees me from an obligation.
Second, "reactions" are not part of the email culture or the standard email specs. It's unexpected and awkward.
So it's not being "anti-reaction" in general, it's being against some feature that only works in MS email apps, which then pops up in broken form elsewhere.
Gmail launched the feature in 2023[1].
I’ve personally not used the feature but emojis shouldn’t be images — they are after all Unicode code points. Not sure why MS’s implementation uses images at all.
[1] https://blog.google/products/gmail/gmail-emoji-reactions/
Another old dog refusing to learn a new trick. If you want to talk about not part of email culture, let's not forget images weren't part of the original. So people got over that. They embraced it just like they embraced HTML emails and everything else. You can stand in the middle of the stream, but it's just going to go right on by you
I still use a plain-text email client.
If someone is saying "I think this, and therefore everyone thinks this", then how common their opinion is becomes relevant.
And part of what irritates me shows up in your answer. This feeling of superiority of being in the "in-group" that seeps out.
I can't think of a single person I know that uses a text-only email client (and yes, I know more than one of them) who isn't what you'd call a "power user".
All of them know that most people don't use a plain-text email client, they just prefer to use one themselves.
The idea of "reactions" to email is, to me, silly and unnecessary.
The context here is in how hot-garbage the feature is for people not using Outlook.
If the experience for all users was simply a thumbs up appearing in the subject line on sent emails, maybe I'd see the point you're trying to make. Instead, it's generating a complete email that occupies the same workflow as other actually important information.
If you think a thumbs up response to an e-mail carries the same importance as a written message being directly sent to the user, you are the person who is clearly in the minority.
oh, i'm in the minority alright but for totally different reasons than the incorrect nonsense you've just spouted. i think email is totally broken/useless at this point. to me, anyone still using email for personal communications is an ancient curmudgeon stuck in ways and unwilling to adapt to modern times. maybe corporate emails where it is only used for work purposes can remain some what clean. for personal email where everyone decided that it is okay to spam into oblivion any and every email address you've collected or bought with sales/promos/coupons/attention seeking/pr releases/etc without asking, email is ruined
At least I don't remember anything similar in IRC or ICQ.
Reactions make more sense to me in a kind of communication where you're doing real-time conversational stuff and brevity is important, such as instant messaging. In email, it doesn't really add anything.
Secondly: What does it mean to get a reaction to an email? Can I interpret your "thumbs up" as a sign to go ahead with something, or is it just an "acknowledge, I got your email". If we more or less agree at this point that email are "for serious business" then we must treat it as such and provide clear and precise communication. Reactions are the opposite of that, they are more easily interpreted wrong, depending on context, culture or mood or the recipient.
There might be a really good and reasonable use for "reactions" in emails, but I seriously doubt that Microsoft went all in and made their UI/UX experts do the research and those researchers came back with a clear answer that this was great and here's how to implement it. Given that this isn't even a standard I feel like it's something someone did on a Friday afternoon to show that you could done it. The piggy-backing on SMTP headers have all the hallmarks of a hack.
I've struggled my entire life trying to control my focus, and it's like the rest of humanity has decided to go all in on filling our shared environment with even more distractions. It sucks. It's manipulative. Let me turn it off. Leave me be. Better yet, help me pay attention to the things _I_ value.
/rant
However I really struggle with emojis as a general concept. I don't understand a lot of them, and it seems people put a lot of hidden meaning into them that I have to interpret, and I feel the cognitive load is a lot bigger than if people would just type out what the fuck they are trying to say.
When my friends use emojis, I know what they mean because I know them and the in-group slang we use. When a stranger or acquaintance uses emojis, the only way to know what they're trying to say is through context clues, like with any other unfamiliar slang.
So if someone I don't know well is using emojis, I just ignore the ones whose meaning aren't obvious given the context. If I think they're trying to say something important, I'll ask outright what they meant (and then get an understanding of how they use emojis and so are better able to understand them in the future.)
No, it's exactly the opposite. "Reaction" responses are irrelevant noise that clogs up the communication channel and wastes other people's time and attention.
People don't usually manually type these sorts of reactions because doing so is not often worth the effort. But this feature eliminates the friction, and encourages people to engage in behavior that is effectively spamming.
Usually on multiple devices. That said, they are fine when on certain mediums. Chat and slack type stuff where it’s sync conversations that’s fine (although on larger groups and at work it starts becoming an asynchronous bulletin board more than a chat). Email is asynchronous and I only need the final response if the conversation even requires one. If I’m asking you a question I don’t need an acknowledgment reaction followed by an answer 3 hours later. Just send the answer 3 hours later. If I asked you a question and said I needed an answer quickly, you could say I can’t get it to you for 3 hours or if you never say anything I’m going to assume you won’t be answering me (that’s ok!) but if you acknowledge it I will assume you’re working on the quick response I asked for and if o don’t get it I’ll probably be upset or wondering what the problem is.
Anyways, in general we’ve built up a lot of norms for various mediums. Email norms don’t need to follow chat norms.
I asked a question recently to someone and got a "like" back as the "answer". I then spent one minute pondering wtf this message even was (it was the first of its kind that I received) and another pondering wtf the respondent meant as the question was not of the form "do you like XXX?".
This "feature", at least in this case, was not a form of communication of but a disruptive form of confusion.
This "feature" is not just distasteful but actively harmful and anti to accepted email communication norms. On Slack it's annoying enough but it's a norm so it is merely distasteful.
In email, I see it as yet another EEE method from Microsoft.
Asking a question and getting "I like your question" as the sole response is incredibly obnoxious.