4 ms·

Tangentially, I don't get how developers on the one hand strive for private offices and no (physical) interruptions, but on the other want to communicate throug

Tangentially, I don't get how developers on the one hand strive for private offices and no (physical) interruptions, but on the other want to communicate through chat channels. Maybe these are different people altogether, and I'm just getting the wrong impression. But personally I prefer a little personal interaction over a long chat.

misterbwong 9y ago
I'm with you on the personal interaction but I think people like slack/email/IM because it allows them to be in control of their communication. If someone drops by your office/cube, it snaps you out of your flow and you have to work to pick it up again. With the online forms of communication, you can turn them off and be guaranteed some distraction free coding time.
grub5000 9y ago
Easier to compose an eloquent and effective reply in chat than in person. Time to think over the messages etc before responding. Can pick my nose while talking to you etc.
IanCal 9y ago
As someone who works remotely, I really appreciate things happening more on chat channels, because then I'm included in part of them. > But personally I prefer a little personal interaction over a long chat. Although it's hard to schedule an 80 second meeting between five people, but a quick set of questions and answers might only take that long.
joombaga 9y ago
For me it's probably selfishness. I'm an infinite inboxer, who prefers synchronous communication (if any). If I need something, I'm going to walk up or call, and yet my door stays closed. So the two preferences aren't mutually exclusive, but in my experience these generally ARE different people altogether.
lucb1e 9y ago
> I don't get how developers on the one hand strive for private offices and no (physical) interruptions, but on the other want to communicate through chat channels. Chats are much less interrupting. When someone walks in, you have to look at them (it's rude to keep typing and look at your screen), your brain starts to assess who it is and their mood and pulls into an appropriate facial expression, and you have to start listening because your audio buffer is much more volatile than your chat client's message log. Even if you're just finishing the "hope to hear from you soon" of an email, you typically have to acknowledge someone's presence and already detect who it is (someone two levels above your paygrade, you'd not want to keep waiting, while you would let a peer wait for that email to get sent out). I don't know how much of that subconscious activity really interrupts flow, but I notice it's annoying. For chat, group messages don't trigger notifications and they just get looked at when I have a second. If someone needs me specifically, they'll mention me or send a private message. In those cases, I will notice the notification but will (depending on how concentrated I am) either not process it beyond "there's something" or not beyond judging whether it's urgent (based on the first five words, or whatever makes it into the notification). I catch myself thinking "wait, someone sent me something, I totally forgot" and it turns out there are no unread chats. What must have happened is that I alt-tabbed back and forth to make the unread-message counter go away (and give them the double tickmark to indicate I saw it) because what they sent did not need further processing (something like a final "okay"). That did not interrupt flow. --- On top of that, what others have said: external people (at clients', at home, whatever) can follow chats along; you can do stuff in between messages; you can pick your nose during conversations; and you can have an 80 second meeting between five people. I think an uninterrupted private office and "instant" messaging are not mutually exclusive things.
- Underqualified 9y ago
  Thanks for the reply. I'm glad it works for you. Personally I've noticed people tend to take a longer time saying something in chat than they would in person. And if I have to wait for a reply I'll probably start doing something else, potentially making the chat conversation go even slower. I have little experience with group chats, in my limited exposure to them they tended to be more focussed on fun than productivity. I also seem to be one of the few people that can quickly context switch between a conversation and actual work.
marssaxman 9y ago
I don't have to drop (as much of) my mental state in order to communicate via chat. It's asynchronous, so I can finish typing out whatever I'm thinking about, or looking for whatever I'm trying to find, kick off a build, etc., and then turn my attention to the chat window and bang out whatever comes next in the conversation. Once written, I can switch right back to whatever I was doing - I type quickly, so it's usually only a few seconds of interruption. I can easily carry on a couple of extended chat conversations while simultaneously continuing to get my actual work done. If someone wants to talk in person or via voice instead, my heart always sinks a little, because it means I have to drop whatever I was doing and give the conversation my full attention instead. Once we're done, I have to try to remember what I was thinking about before the distraction happened, get myself back up to speed... This doesn't come up so frequently anymore, but it was very noticeable when I used to work remote. Some coworkers were happy with chat, and it was easy to communicate with them; with others, it'd be like twenty seconds of productive conversation, then "can we please just have a call about this" and, oh god, that's it for getting anything done for the next 40 minutes.
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  > It's asynchronous I find the same to be true on (small) Slack (or similar) channels. Which is funny given that Slack being synchronous is one of the two main points of the link.

misterbwong 9y ago

I'm with you on the personal interaction but I think people like slack/email/IM because it allows them to be in control of their communication. If someone drops by your office/cube, it snaps you out of your flow and you have to work to pick it up again. With the online forms of communication, you can turn them off and be guaranteed some distraction free coding time.

grub5000 9y ago

Easier to compose an eloquent and effective reply in chat than in person. Time to think over the messages etc before responding. Can pick my nose while talking to you etc.

IanCal 9y ago

As someone who works remotely, I really appreciate things happening more on chat channels, because then I'm included in part of them. > But personally I prefer a little personal interaction over a long chat. Although it's hard to schedule an 80 second meeting between five people, but a quick set of questions and answers might only take that long.

joombaga 9y ago

For me it's probably selfishness. I'm an infinite inboxer, who prefers synchronous communication (if any). If I need something, I'm going to walk up or call, and yet my door stays closed. So the two preferences aren't mutually exclusive, but in my experience these generally ARE different people altogether.

lucb1e 9y ago

> I don't get how developers on the one hand strive for private offices and no (physical) interruptions, but on the other want to communicate through chat channels. Chats are much less interrupting. When someone walks in, you have to look at them (it's rude to keep typing and look at your screen), your brain starts to assess who it is and their mood and pulls into an appropriate facial expression, and you have to start listening because your audio buffer is much more volatile than your chat client's message log. Even if you're just finishing the "hope to hear from you soon" of an email, you typically have to acknowledge someone's presence and already detect who it is (someone two levels above your paygrade, you'd not want to keep waiting, while you would let a peer wait for that email to get sent out). I don't know how much of that subconscious activity really interrupts flow, but I notice it's annoying. For chat, group messages don't trigger notifications and they just get looked at when I have a second. If someone needs me specifically, they'll mention me or send a private message. In those cases, I will notice the notification but will (depending on how concentrated I am) either not process it beyond "there's something" or not beyond judging whether it's urgent (based on the first five words, or whatever makes it into the notification). I catch myself thinking "wait, someone sent me something, I totally forgot" and it turns out there are no unread chats. What must have happened is that I alt-tabbed back and forth to make the unread-message counter go away (and give them the double tickmark to indicate I saw it) because what they sent did not need further processing (something like a final "okay"). That did not interrupt flow. --- On top of that, what others have said: external people (at clients', at home, whatever) can follow chats along; you can do stuff in between messages; you can pick your nose during conversations; and you can have an 80 second meeting between five people. I think an uninterrupted private office and "instant" messaging are not mutually exclusive things.

Underqualified 9y ago
Thanks for the reply. I'm glad it works for you. Personally I've noticed people tend to take a longer time saying something in chat than they would in person. And if I have to wait for a reply I'll probably start doing something else, potentially making the chat conversation go even slower. I have little experience with group chats, in my limited exposure to them they tended to be more focussed on fun than productivity. I also seem to be one of the few people that can quickly context switch between a conversation and actual work.

marssaxman 9y ago

I don't have to drop (as much of) my mental state in order to communicate via chat. It's asynchronous, so I can finish typing out whatever I'm thinking about, or looking for whatever I'm trying to find, kick off a build, etc., and then turn my attention to the chat window and bang out whatever comes next in the conversation. Once written, I can switch right back to whatever I was doing - I type quickly, so it's usually only a few seconds of interruption. I can easily carry on a couple of extended chat conversations while simultaneously continuing to get my actual work done. If someone wants to talk in person or via voice instead, my heart always sinks a little, because it means I have to drop whatever I was doing and give the conversation my full attention instead. Once we're done, I have to try to remember what I was thinking about before the distraction happened, get myself back up to speed... This doesn't come up so frequently anymore, but it was very noticeable when I used to work remote. Some coworkers were happy with chat, and it was easy to communicate with them; with others, it'd be like twenty seconds of productive conversation, then "can we please just have a call about this" and, oh god, that's it for getting anything done for the next 40 minutes.

aeorgnoieang 9y ago
> It's asynchronous I find the same to be true on (small) Slack (or similar) channels. Which is funny given that Slack being synchronous is one of the two main points of the link.