Hacker News Reader

Comment by jawilson2 | Hacker News Reader

I've told people this for years. The mode of communication reflects the urgency. If you text me, expect a response on the order of 3+ days. If you call, and I recognize the number, it will be more urgent. If I DON'T recognize it, it goes to voicemail and back in the 3+ days queue. If you show up at my door, it is immediate. Even with my wife, she will text while I'm at the grocery to pick up some extra food items, and it doesn't necessarily come through or I'm on silent. I'll get home, and she'll ask where the food is, and I ask why she didn't call if it was timely. I just do NOT check my texts that often, it isn't because I'm deliberately ignoring anyone.

View on HN

That's funny, I take the exact opposite approach. I prioritize interactions based on how much commitment I expect they'll require, with lesser commitment getting more priority. So a text message I'll usually answer right away. An email or some written reply that requires some redaction I'll postpone to when I can take the time for a thoughtful response. A ring on my buzzer, if I'm not expecting anything or anyone, I'll always ignore; I can't let any dumbass passing by the front of my building rope me into a pointless conversation.

Phone calls don't fit neatly into this scheme because they demand a lot of attention, but it's easy to get out of one if you realize it's not something critical. I generally pick up and the moment I get the slightest whiff of spam, I just hang up.

The current trend seems to be switching the priority order of calls and texts among many of us. I feel like a call should be scheduled, preferably 3+ days out, and preferably with an agenda attached. (Same rules I feel about any sort of meeting.) But a direct text (non-group chat, just to me) is a priority. Group chats get that 1-2 days middle ground.

I know that's the trend, but it is backwards to me. Like UDP vs TCP. If you need an immediate answer for something, why send a one-way communication where you have no idea whether the person on the other end A) received it, and B) acted on it. A 15 second phone call accomplishes this, whereas if I text you it could be hours, unless you immediately respond.

Most text message apps have real time read receipts for A and "actively writing" indicators that imply some of B. (The things that we invented for "instant messaging" decades ago are finally mostly back in vogue in text messaging.) Text messages have "reactions" like Thumbs Up that very quickly say "I will action this shortly." For me that's more TCP, the classic ACK receipt then action.

A 15 second phone call probably goes straight to my voicemail and there's no read receipts if I have read the voicemail transcription yet, much less tried to listen to it. It might be hours until I'm in a quiet enough space to try to listen to it, because I don't carry headphones with me most of the time, don't listen to speakerphone in public, and the "phone speaker" on an iPhone is generally hard to hear for me, no matter how I awkwardly position the phone. The transcriptions are usually not good enough to action directly so I do usually need to do that dance of find a way to listen to it. Calls to me are a UDP hole with fewer acknowledgements and a lot of inconvenience.

Unless you've prescheduled a call with me, in which case maybe I do answer and maybe it is quick enough to be a 15 second phone call. But the easiest way to schedule that call with me is going to be to text me "Hey can I call in an hour about X?" and I'll ACK it soon after, and probably then likely spend 45 minutes looking for a quiet place to take a private phone call.

But, yeah, different perspectives for different sorts of people. Phone calls are taxing to me and the real world is a loud place and I don't carry headphones and I like to control the environment in which I try to answer a phone call, but also I find finding such quiet environments stressful enough to want to schedule them ahead of time.

Wouldn't it depend upon context?

If it is an emergency, it is a voice call. It is both immediate and conveys urgency. If it is something that you need to talk through, it is a scheduled voice call. Asynchronous communications may demonstrate respect for a person's time since it does not (need to) interrupt them in the moment, but the inefficiency results in a disrespectful waste of time for bidirectional conversations.

If it is something where you need a simple response by the end of the day, it is a text. If it requires a lengthy response, email. Never expect a lengthy response by the end of the day, or for it to be handled on devices with terrible input methods (like phones).

Anything that isn't covered by those scenarios will be largely dependent on the person.

If it's an emergency I want it in text first because I read faster than I listen to voicemails, and can do so in more spaces/contexts/environments (say, at a loud concert or eating in a restaurant), and I trust a person to write the message better than the voicemail system will transcribe a call. Certain emergency keywords sent in a text will especially alert me faster than a call would. (I have call notifications as practically turned off as possible in current operating systems [way too much phone call spam], but a measured set of notification levels for text notifications.)

I think even for emergency situations the relationship between voice calls and text messages is flipping. Text messages are immediate and can convey urgency. Phone calls are for private, quiet spaces, which take time to find (or schedule). With the death of the private phone booths in public spaces, phone calls are inconvenient to take almost everywhere now outside of one's home, but urgent text messages can be read and even acted upon just about anywhere.

Why are we talking about voicemails in the context of emergencies? If it was an emergency, I'm calling every number I have for someone until they pickup or enough time has passed that I write them off as a flake and find the next person on the list who might be able to help with whatever it is.

I think that's what I'm complaining about, too, but again from a just slightly different perspective. In an emergency I also don't want to take time to "call every number I have for someone". I don't want to worry about safe calling hours or people that prescreen every call/make every call go to voicemail (including myself). I'd much prefer to send a much faster, single text message and they either get it or they don't, and often there's a quick read receipt if they do get it.

Phone calls have so much ceremony and ritual and take so much time to play phone tag, and every single part of that, especially the phone tag, has gotten so much worse because of spammers. Phone calls just don't feel reliable anymore. It's easier to assume you are more likely to hit someone's voicemail than reach them many hours of the day. It's easier to assume people don't even check their voicemail in some cases, because they expect a text message if it was important.

I think we have different definitions of "emergency" if a text message that they may or may not see any time soon is an acceptable solution.

If it is an actual emergency, I need to know that they have received the communication in real time. I'm never leaving someone a voicemail in an emergency situation.

I think it is possibly more we have a different sense of "received the communication and feedback to the communication in real time" and the kinds of feedback we get from the medium. Text messages give immediate feedback quicker when they are received. Especially iMessage and/or RCS you have read receipts and "quick reactions" and "someone is typing bubbles" to text messages for very immediate feedback. If you have enough people in your life that never answer phone calls, the phone is a much slower way to get in touch with someone and it is missing all sorts of useful quick feedback (did it go to voicemail because they are in a bathroom or a loud concert or did it go to voicemail because they are screening calls after 30 spam calls a day got to be too much for them? did they hear the voicemail or hopefully see a transcript of it? are they going to call back or are they going to not see it for another three days or do they not pay attention to voicemail at all and just expect a text?), most of which additional messaging gets moved to text channels today among many of my friends. ("Can I call you in like twenty minutes?" is a somewhat common text message to and from some of my friends who always text before a call.) In a real emergency you should text me to try to call me before you call me if you want the likeliest results that I will pick up any phone call, but most of the time it is probably just faster to include a headline in the text itself and save us both the time and emotional roller coaster of also making a call.

In an emergency, I can often text 15-20 people in the time it takes to try to get a phone call through to a single person. (Especially with the multiplying effects of copy and paste and group chats.) I'm still probably going to follow up with a bunch of people by phone calls after the texts go out, but most of that will be by request ("can you call me when you get a chance?" texts) for details or shared emotion bonding after the key points are already distributed (and possibly some emergency conditions better).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com