devmorgan.com

I want to let you in on a little secret: Technology doesn’t solve every problem.

In fact, it sometimes creates some.

My friend Elvis wrote an article about a conversation we had a few weeks ago. We were talking about communication mediums. The article he wrote is a much shorter distillation of what we discussed, leaving out key points (editors and word counts! Ha. Who needs ‘em!). So I wanted to touch on some of the discussion as well.

The first thing we have to talk about is hyperconnection. In reality, we have a pretty sweet deal right now with technology. If we want to get in touch with someone, or send someone a message… we can. Send a text message or an instant message. Done. Want to set up plans for tomorrow night? Done. What an excellent ability to have! There is only one problem, it’s a horrible method of communication.

In fact, I text and IM constantly. We don’t even need to get started about how much I use Instant Messenger and GTalk, but on any given day, I’ll send and receive over 40 text messages. For some, that’s a lot, for others, that’s nothing. To each their own. However, even though many communication tasks in a given day are similar to the ones I just mentioned and they are perfectly fine remaining asynchronous. Others are not. Others require synchronous communication.

Asynchronous communication isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Sure, it’s ok to shoot off a message and not have to care about the response being timely. In fact, a lot of times you don’t even need to worry about if the message was received at the same time you sent it. “Hey - see you tonight at 8″ isn’t a problem. The problem is when you use an asynchronous communication method when the communication clearly needs to be synchronous.

I suppose we should go over what the difference is:

Asynchronous communication includes text messaging, emails and instant messaging.

Synchronous communication includes telephone calls, video chat and meeting in person.

Do you see the difference? The first set lacks what is most important in communication: an implicit expectation of immediate response. When you stick to conversations that can be done asynchronously, it doesn’t matter at all. However, if a conversation turns to something that requires responses and is actually meaningful you must be wary of the asynchronous methods. Nothing is more frustrating than trying to hold a conversation with someone that isn’t paying attention. Using the asynchronous methods that is exactly what you are inviting. The reason they are so damned convenient is because you can do them while doing something else. This is only the start of your problems though, because unfortunately the mediums that are asynchronous also lack other required communication features.

I don’t know about you, but my thoughts can not be expressed in 160 characters. Text messages are short. Sure, you can link messages to send a longer one, but, in reality, you are typing on a keyboard smaller than your hand - you aren’t going to be saying much. The same can even be said for instant messaging and emails. Once you turn to these mediums, the accepted practice is to put as much information into text as humanly possible. Again, for some communications this is perfectly fine. You can say exactly what you mean by using a few words. However, if you want to have an important, meaningful conversation with someone, you will be out of luck.

Written word is one of those tricky things. Determining tone and meaning from a particular piece of text can be very difficult. In fact, its very easy to misread a particular message and interpret a very different meaning.

For example, one of my most hated words in English (but, actually one of my favorite in ASL): Fine.

What does “fine” mean? Just the way it sounds in your head can be different.  When reading the word, it’s  tone is ambiguous. You need to take other cues to try to understand the meaning behind it. Does the person mean “everything is fine” or “things are… fine“. Responses to requests can be met with “…fine.” which has a much more negative connotation than “fine.”, but is still not as great as “fine :)”. Things can be “fine with me.” or “fine with me!” and they have a different meaning. All of these different versions need some context, some clue to help explain what they are really meant to mean. This is where textual mediums fail. Sure, I’ll use over my fair share of emoticons to try to express meaning, but you just can’t get the same effect as using verbal and visual cues from conversations when using the telephone, video chat or actually physically standing to chat with someone.

So, we have new communication mediums that are great in certain situations. Sending short messages, or trying to get a message to someone that may be busy has become easier. However, with these new mediums, it becomes more and more the norm to attempt to use them for what they can’t do: real, deep, valuable conversation.  You simply can’t depend on a text message to consult a friend about life decisions. Just as much as you can’t call someone 3 times an hour just to tell them something random that just happened. There is a time and a place for each medium. The really important part is deciding which to use when.

This entry was posted on Monday, September 29th, 2008 at 1:42 am and is filed under life, rambling, technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.