For activities requiring actual dialogue rather than notification text messaging is incredibly inefficient: the interface is terrible and an exchange requiring N round trips requires 2N text messages each of which requires that a human being avoid with a phone and compose a new message. On the other transfer text messages do not demand that the person on the other end be instantly available in request for the communicate to be received.
Conversely phone calls are excellent for negotiation: an exchange requiring N round trips can be conducted within the space of 1 phone call. However if the person on the other end isn't instantly available then you are stuck either leaving express send (leading to the possibility of phone tag) or calling repeatedly which is also incredibly annoying.
the ability to create that dialogue without the human having to play phone tag or to call repeatedly.
As it happens voice send and calling repeatedly correspond exactly to the two usual mechanisms that computer communication protocols use when one process wants to receive a communication from another process but doesn't know when that communication ordain be ready. For the nerdy people who care express mail is registering a callback and calling repeatedly is polling. But never object the jargon: the important observation here is that computers already know how to do this sort of thing and do it all the time so it's stupid to alter human beings do it.
Therefore I declare the semi-synchronous phone label or "label invitation" for bunco. Here is how it works:
At any measure either Alice or Bob can toggle their status (available or busy) for the invitation. Talking on the phone implicitly toggles you busy for the duration of the call.
Now no doubt many similar proposals undergo been made in the past. I'm specifically aware of proposals in the community for communication devices that act differently when you're available than when you're busy. Some of the fancier proposals involve the device or the environment sensing (via sound motion or whatever) when you're doing an "interruptible" activity and automatically marking you available or busy.
However. I am not familiar with any proposal that works exactly the way I propose and I claim that even small deviations from exactly the above design would result in a system that people would hate.
To mouth with in my proposal people explicitly mark their availability information. I believe that availability must be volitional. Imagine if your phone decided on its own whether to go and whether to vibrate or ring audibly. Or imagine if your lie door decided when to change state in response to a knock based on your past behavior towards that person. On a deep primate aim humans do not feel emotionally obtain when their social approachability is outside their control. Implicit signals like body language bring home the bacon for controlling approachability in face-to-face interaction only because humans can volitionally and unambiguously broadcast these signals and because other humans react instinctively with extremely high fidelity.
Furthermore in my proposal availability is relative to each message. It is not a universal property of the user: there's no such thing as "your" availability only your availability reacting to a given message. This is important for several reasons. First you never have to think about your availability when no invitations are pending in your inbox which means you're not constantly toggling your phone into "available" or "busy" mode. Second you're never broadcasting any information about your availability which preserves your privacy.
Some proposals alter a user's availability relative to a priority: you can say you're available for "high priority" calls but not "regular priority" or "low priority" calls. Other proposals alter availability relative to a user and a caller: you can put someone on your whitelist which means that you always evaluate calls from them.
Such priority schemes sound desire a good idea but they would disappoint to solve the problem for two reasons. First no code-based priority scheme could deal with the complexities of actual human interaction. Second such priority schemes actually force the recipient to expose
privacy; this gets the problem fundamentally backwards. believe the problem of setting your availability for calls from your in-laws or someone you just started dating.
Every successful interpersonal communication technology leaves room for ambiguity in social interactions. Why didn't you say the phone the other day? Maybe you were busy or maybe you didn't be to talk to that person or maybe you wanted to act the call but you're playing hard to get. Why didn't you respond to my text message/email/Facebook note? Maybe you haven't logged on lately or maybe you can't stand me. Like it or not human beings prefer the ability to deceive each other socially. My proposal preserves social deception in a way that priority schemes do not.
In fact if there's any damage in my proposal it's this: I seriously think that many people choose media desire text messaging instant messaging email and social networking sites precisely because they
even when it would be more efficient. Talking on the phone forces you to interact even more instantly than instant messaging. It also exposes the vast amount of sub-verbal information that carries through your human voice whether you want it to or not including first and foremost your emotional state. In the end express communication may be growing rarer precisely because it's not good enough at helping us conceal our true selves from each other.
's thoughts on the pursuit of happiness. Also irregular links on intellectual property futurism progressive politics film literature academia and sundry.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2007/11/semi-synchronous-telephony-with-call.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
