4 ms·

OP here. I think the problem is that when tools like Slack are engineered in such a way as to make people dependent on their product, it's unfair to expect user

OP here. I think the problem is that when tools like Slack are engineered in such a way as to make people dependent on their product, it's unfair to expect users to accept all the responsibility of mitigating against that. Software companies aren't using organizational productivity as a benchmark for their success, just usage statistics. So no, Slack doesn't enforce a single way of working, but it is engineered to consume as much of people's time as possible, for better or worse. Jason Fried wrote his in his (much more comprehensive) post about group chat pros/cons: "It’s common in the software industry to blame the users. It’s the user’s fault. They don’t know how to use it. They’re using it wrong. They need to do this or do that. But the reality is that tools encourage specific behaviors. A product is a series of design decisions with a specific outcome in mind. Yes, you can use tools as they weren’t intended, but most people follow the patterns suggested by the design. And so in the end, if people are exhausted and feeling unable to keep up, it’s the tool’s fault, not the user’s fault. If the design leads to stress, it’s a bad design." (https://m.signalvnoise.com/is-group-chat-making-you-sweat-744659addf7d https://m.signalvnoise.com/is-group-chat-making-you-sweat-74...)

ravitation 9y ago
> I think the problem is that when tools like Slack are engineered in such a way as to make people dependent on their product, it's unfair to expect users to accept all the responsibility of mitigating against that. You write this as if it's a given. I never said anything about mitigating against dependency... I'm talking about mitigating against a dysfunctional organization, which are far more common than I think most people realize, or (especially) care to admit. > Software companies aren't using organizational productivity as a benchmark for their success, just usage statistics. Again, I'll accept that software companies care about the number of active users even over productivity, but it's not a given that Slack cares (at all) about how much time I actually spend on Slack (as opposed to, for example, Facebook). > So no, Slack doesn't enforce a single way of working, but it is engineered to consume as much of people's time as possible, for better or worse. If you show me that Slack is trying to monopolize people's time (something that, quite honestly, would be bad for its business and product) then we can talk about how much responsibility a user has to mitigate a product's designed purpose. Otherwise, I'm speaking about how much accountability a user is willing to assign to his or her organization because, quite frequently, people are unwilling to point out things they find wrong within an organization. > Jason Fried wrote his in his (much more comprehensive) post about group chat pros/cons: I find a lot wrong with Jason Fried's writing in general, and this post isn't different. That quote specifically falls into one of his common issues, oversimplification to the point of absurdity. If a design leads to stress it's bad design? Well what if communicating one-on-one with your boss about things you're accountable for stresses you out (something that is fairly common)? And since Slack is designed to make that pretty easy, is it Slack's fault you're stressed? Is Slack poorly designed because you are? No. That's an organizational issue.
icc97 9y ago
> I think the problem is that when tools like Slack are engineered in such a way as to make people dependent on their product It's a chat client. It's an addictive medium. It sounds to me like you're shooting the messenger. Skype, Hangouts, or any IM client wants your attention. Slack is just a better version of all the other IM clients I've used (for work). If you don't want to be disturbed you close Slack. I suspect that if you've got problems with Slack, it means that there's a problem in the culture of where you work. Where I work, individual @ mentions are barely used, maybe 0-5 per day. But there's nothing that's written in stone, or ever been discussed, it's just that colleagues respect each other's focus. Then the rest is less important that all can be ignored unless you're not concentrating on something.
- arbie 9y ago
  > Where I work, individual @ mentions are barely used, maybe 0-5 per day Does that strike you as low, or about the normal expected amount?
- acranox 9y ago
  It can be a little of both. > I suspect that if you've got problems with Slack, it means that there's a problem in the culture of where you work. One can work somewhere that has a problem in the culture, and Slack can make that worse. It's been interesting to me to observe when my company changed from hipchat to slack, my productivity went down until I recognized how slack was messing me up (because of the default UI patterns it came with) and I've had to unwind that by changing a bunch of settings and patterns. It's been a similar change when I moved from a company that used email and tickets for team communication, to one that uses chat. Yes, the culture if the heart of the problems, but the tools can amplify those problems. It's like if you can't cut a piece of wood effectively with a handsaw, but I give you a power saw, you may soon have much bigger problems on your hands. (or hand, if you really mess it up)

ravitation 9y ago

> I think the problem is that when tools like Slack are engineered in such a way as to make people dependent on their product, it's unfair to expect users to accept all the responsibility of mitigating against that. You write this as if it's a given. I never said anything about mitigating against dependency... I'm talking about mitigating against a dysfunctional organization, which are far more common than I think most people realize, or (especially) care to admit. > Software companies aren't using organizational productivity as a benchmark for their success, just usage statistics. Again, I'll accept that software companies care about the number of active users even over productivity, but it's not a given that Slack cares (at all) about how much time I actually spend on Slack (as opposed to, for example, Facebook). > So no, Slack doesn't enforce a single way of working, but it is engineered to consume as much of people's time as possible, for better or worse. If you show me that Slack is trying to monopolize people's time (something that, quite honestly, would be bad for its business and product) then we can talk about how much responsibility a user has to mitigate a product's designed purpose. Otherwise, I'm speaking about how much accountability a user is willing to assign to his or her organization because, quite frequently, people are unwilling to point out things they find wrong within an organization. > Jason Fried wrote his in his (much more comprehensive) post about group chat pros/cons: I find a lot wrong with Jason Fried's writing in general, and this post isn't different. That quote specifically falls into one of his common issues, oversimplification to the point of absurdity. If a design leads to stress it's bad design? Well what if communicating one-on-one with your boss about things you're accountable for stresses you out (something that is fairly common)? And since Slack is designed to make that pretty easy, is it Slack's fault you're stressed? Is Slack poorly designed because you are? No. That's an organizational issue.

icc97 9y ago

> I think the problem is that when tools like Slack are engineered in such a way as to make people dependent on their product It's a chat client. It's an addictive medium. It sounds to me like you're shooting the messenger. Skype, Hangouts, or any IM client wants your attention. Slack is just a better version of all the other IM clients I've used (for work). If you don't want to be disturbed you close Slack. I suspect that if you've got problems with Slack, it means that there's a problem in the culture of where you work. Where I work, individual @ mentions are barely used, maybe 0-5 per day. But there's nothing that's written in stone, or ever been discussed, it's just that colleagues respect each other's focus. Then the rest is less important that all can be ignored unless you're not concentrating on something.

arbie 9y ago
> Where I work, individual @ mentions are barely used, maybe 0-5 per day Does that strike you as low, or about the normal expected amount?
acranox 9y ago
It can be a little of both. > I suspect that if you've got problems with Slack, it means that there's a problem in the culture of where you work. One can work somewhere that has a problem in the culture, and Slack can make that worse. It's been interesting to me to observe when my company changed from hipchat to slack, my productivity went down until I recognized how slack was messing me up (because of the default UI patterns it came with) and I've had to unwind that by changing a bunch of settings and patterns. It's been a similar change when I moved from a company that used email and tickets for team communication, to one that uses chat. Yes, the culture if the heart of the problems, but the tools can amplify those problems. It's like if you can't cut a piece of wood effectively with a handsaw, but I give you a power saw, you may soon have much bigger problems on your hands. (or hand, if you really mess it up)