

A Thought on Communication - adityakothadiya
http://al3x.net/2011/01/10/a-thought-on-communication.html

======
richcollins
Most people I know prefer texting to talking on the phone. It's easier to
multitask or defer your response. Video communication is even more invasive
than audio. I seriously doubt that _communicating with your peers by text is
now considered archaic_ will hold true (at least compared to video).

~~~
Stormbringer
It grieves me when someone texts me and says "do you want to do lunch?" and I
text them back saying "sure, where and when?"... and then I end up having to
pick the time and place, and usually the first three or so suggestions get
knocked back.

I mean, if it was a woman, I would understand, but when a bloke does that to
me I'm always thinking to myself "Dude, take off the lipstick and put on some
trousers for goodness sake".

Texting _should_ be a more efficient means of communication, but alas, is
still imperfect. :D

------
JoshCole
I've read a book by Niel Postman where he points out that the medium your
working in changes how you craft a message. I believe he was right in stating
that a text-based medium promotes reasoning to a greater degree.

The same sort of idea is present in the receiving of a message as well. Your
input is going to be processed differently based on the medium your in. Think
of ebooks versus paper based books. When you use ebooks you have a better
searching and storing experience, but paper based books have an edge when
taking notes.

What I'm trying to get across here is that switching from one medium to
another doesn't mean were going to be put at an advantage or disadvantage
necessarily. We could be putting everyone at a disadvantage by switching to a
medium that isn't as good, which means those of us who weren't using the new
medium from birth are at advantage over those of us who were.

To make this point in another way, imagine Hacker News in a futuristic video
world. Note that now that your dealing with video you have new biases being
put in. For example, you might not be able to hear all the comments at the
same time or the pretty girl is being upvoted despite a not so compelling
content contribution. It becomes a pretty different site. So different that I
would say, "I'm glad I got to have the text-based Hacker News" instead of "I
think those of us who aren't use to video comments are at a disadvantage."

~~~
_delirium
_I've read a book by Niel Postman where he points out that the medium your
working in changes how you craft a message. I believe he was right in stating
that a text-based medium promotes reasoning to a greater degree._

I think Marshall McLuhan's views on this are worth revisiting as well, though
he's currently a bit out of favor among media-studies and communications-
studies folks. He's admittedly a bit extreme in parts (he seems to sometimes
really believe that the "medium _is_ the message"), but there's a lot of good
stuff in _Laws of Media_ on how different technical choices for representing
and conveying information will structure and influence the information that's
conveyed, as opposed to being mere implementation details.

------
liuhenry
We've already shown that remote and non-present communication works, but the
difference between delayed and instant communication is huge. It's not so much
text vs. video but that text gives you the ability to think and write/rewrite,
while audio or video forces you to be real-time. IM, text, email, letters, and
comments have more in common with each other than the issues of presence or
remoteness, as do telephony and video.

Text-based communication won't disappear. Video may replace audio-only, but
they're intrinsically different and each has their advantages and purposes.
The medium or means may change, but we'll always have a delayed and an instant
method of communication.

------
derefr
Regarding "the inevitable future": why the heck would we bother? The post
itself gives precisely the reason that this won't happen:

> This world of pervasive video necessitates beauty. It values physical poise,
> wardrobe, and the tenor of one’s voice.

I can answer the phone in my underwear. I can't video-call someone in my
underwear. That's a reason to avoid video-calling, not a reason to get
dressed.

The kinds of new technologies that see instant adoption are the kinds that
make ordinary life _easier_ and _more comfortable_. Video calling is _harder_
and _more formal_ than voice-calling (which is itself harder and more formal
than textual communication.) It won't get used in the majority of situations,
where the informational content just needs to be efficiently pushed to another
person with as little personal effort expended as possible.

The one use it _will_ have is in _status signaling_ , in situations where one
needs to show they really care and are expending a lot of energy on the call
(calling your wife, calling your grandparents, doing a phone job interview in
a suit.)

~~~
petercooper
_I can answer the phone in my underwear. I can't video-call someone in my
underwear. That's a reason to avoid video-calling, not a reason to get
dressed._

Under current standards in the current time, I agree. But from a historical
perspective, it's likely that standards will change over the long-term, as
they did for, say, women's beachwear or corporate dress.

If we reach a time when almost _everyone_ is working from home in their PJs,
we should also wind towards such dress being accepted in semi-formal contexts.
Consider jeans in the workplace now. Even 30 years ago, a CEO wearing jeans at
a board meeting couldn't be taken seriously whereas now it's almost a cliché
in tech firms (compare early 80s and 2010 Steve Jobs). The dress of the
typical tech CEO now would probably induce fainting or rage in the board
members of the typical pre-1960s corporation..

~~~
lars512
If working remotely and video calling become that pervasive, I have no doubt
that various filters on your appearance will become commonplace. You could
answer a call in your pjs and appear to be in a suit for a business call, or
in jeans and a t-shirt for your friends, etc.

------
shorbaji
There isn't much room for half-commitment while on a video call and the
interpersonal aspects of the job come to the front. This changes the way one
works.

But it isn't quite that novel. Face-to-face interaction we have in the real
world can be viewed as high-quality "video communications". Technology is
merely making it affordable to do the same at a distance and without losing
much of the quality.

So, most of the old etiquette simply migrates to the new medium. For example,
if you don't go to work in pyjamas you probably won't take a video call at
home while in your pyjamas either.

------
jmtulloss
I find it novel that the stereotype of the person who will benefit least from
this transition is also the stereotype of the person who will comment on HN.

------
sz
Hm, this might explain something. In old B&W videos people's impromptu speech
seems much more eloquent than today. I wonder if the luxury of instant text
communication has something to do with it.

------
bergie
Video communication would also solve the biggest issue with tablet computers:
text production is just too cumbersome.

