4 ms·

You could just switch to some other activity while the colleague finishes typing their message. With a very basic policy change to how you receive messages, yo

by nxc18 8y ago

You could just switch to some other activity while the colleague finishes typing their message. With a very basic policy change to how you receive messages, you can totally avoid all inefficiency. You also avoid supporting the transparent money grab of a website dedicated to a needless complaint that is 90% ads.

geofft 8y ago
The problem is I was already doing some other activity, and was interrupted. I'm happy to be interrupted if I can be helpful, I don't want to be interrupted when there's literally no point. Also, many people seem to want to get a reply to their "Hello" before they type more, so you have to switch over to the chat tab instead of just ignoring the notification.
- aeternus 8y ago
  Exactly, there are so many articles showing how costly context switches are, especially for software developers. By saying hi in a separate message you are forcing the recipient to perform a completely avoidable context switch while also priming them for another. A cordial greeting before an ask is mostly an empty gesture anyway. If you actually care how someone's day is going, ask in person or via a message with more substance.
- jeffbr13 8y ago
  I agree! In a way... I’ll see a “Hi!“ in a notification or followed by _x is typing_ then safely know that I can start slow context-switching out of whatever mode I’m in, start reviewing that block of work for check-in or noting the key takeaways to come back to, and start pre-loading whatever I was talking about with that person last, without the fear of “here’s a big block of text, please respond to it in kind (all right away)”. And more than that, I can also interrupt any incorrect lines of thought or rambling if it’s more rubber-ducking than a request, or turn it into more of a conversation than a message which can read “please do this” and a reply which says “um... let me get back to you”. I don’t know about you, but a large technical question or “hey can you... X Y Z” generates much more uncertainty than a chat between colleagues, even if the format is only different. Hell, modes of communication are a thing, we’d be as well use each one for its strengths.
- mstade 8y ago
  > The problem is I was already doing some other activity, and was interrupted. About a year or so ago I came up with a solution to this problem: turn off all notifications. I don't revive notifications for emails, chats, texts – anything except phone calls. That's the only thing. I also have a notice in my chat status at work, and wherever else it makes sense: "For urgent matters, please call me at <phone number>." It's worked wonders. I can choose to respond whenever I choose to check my messages, and for anything truly important people do call. It's happened maybe a half a dozen times over the past year that anyone's actually called, and typically whenever I'm non responsive in chat (because I didn't see it) I'll get an email instead, which generally has more detail in it anyway. This, along with using mornings to square away most correspondence, has worked wonders for my concentration. My afternoons are now mostly focus time, despite people texting and emailing. I just get back to them later. Maybe tomorrow morning.
  - zapzupnz 8y ago
    > turn off all notifications For people whose job it is to be notified of things, likely the author the website included, how is this relevant? Not everybody has the liberty to choose when to check messages or respond to them, especially those who are using a chat system which usually demands an instantaneous response. People collaborating on projects, people working to a deadline, companies which favour Slack or similar systems over email, and in my own example, people on IT helpdesks. While I'm glad that you've managed to regain control of your routine, I'm not sure I see how it's relevant to the scenarios applicable to those hinted at through the context of the website.
    - geofft 8y ago
      Agree - as someone in the position where I do need to respond urgently to some messages, I find it very helpful for chat to interrupt me. For that to be productive, the interruptions need to be meaningful. Saying "no interruptions" doesn't solve my problem. And I do get some blocks of time when I can ignore all interruptions, in which case I just don't even open chat, instead of having it open and disabling notifications. (My job isn't weird; I'm an SRE on a support rotation. When I'm on support I need to see things urgently; when I'm not I can focus on project work and escalations can take the form of someone finding me and pulling the headphones off my ears if needed.) More fundamentally, not being around on the medium that most people at your company use in order to focus on project work is a great way to get left behind in terms of being aware of what the business is doing and what it values. People will slowly see you as the person who's great at finishing their own projects but not usefully responsive, and start treating you that way. Including when trying to assign new projects or during performance review season.
Kaveren 8y ago
Maybe I don't check [chat app] every time someone sends me a message. Let's say someone sends me a "hi" at 3:00 PM. I check it at 3:30 PM. I reply back. Person replies at 3:35 PM. I see this at 4:00 PM. An hour wasted! Maybe now I'm less available than I was, or want to stop working. This is why the "hi" alone is a waste of time. I do not want to be compelled to check [chat application] more often than I want to.
ehsankia 8y ago
The problem isn't even the wait between the two message, sometimes they won't even ask the question until you confirm that you are there. I want to look at the question, then decide if it's something I can answer now, or if I will get back to them later. It depends on many factors such as how busy I am, how complicated the question is, and so on. I could reply "Sort of, depends on your question", but realistically I'll just not reply if they don't ask a real question.
zapzupnz 8y ago
> You also avoid supporting the transparent money grab of a website dedicate to a needless complaint that is 90% ads I don't begrudge the person running the site to want to cover their expenses. Also, their complaint is not needless. It's a perfectly valid complaint. No need to be dismissive just because the site has ads, an issue unrelated from the core message imparted. As others state, the very fact of switching to the chat application just to see whether or not the other user has sent a message is a block to one's train of thought. The colleague mightn't be finishing typing their message until you respond, they might even engage you in some banter first — so you can't just ignore their lonely 'hi', you have to actually engage with it, wasting both of your time. The website manages to convey quite succinctly but not rudely a better way to communicate that one day could become a form of netiquette. There's nothing harmful with that.
tripzilch 8y ago
> You could just switch to some other activity while the colleague finishes typing their message. > With a very basic policy change to how you receive messages, you can totally avoid all inefficiency. That's nice, but not everybody's attention/focus works the same way. I can't do this, for instance. If I get a "hello" message, I can try and return to the task at hand, but the anticipation that I'm going to get another notification any random time now completely ruins my concentration. Trying to regain my focus and continue work takes me at least a minute or two of active effort ignoring that nagging feeling until it's quieter. During that time, of course, comes the second notification with the actual question. Replying to that will of course require my full attention anyway. So I don't usually spend the futile effort to regain focus and rather just zone out for a bit until the other person gets to their point, I can answer, and everything is over. And like everybody says, you can just put your "Hi!" in the same message as the question. I do that always. In fact I would feel I was being purposefully irritating if I sent a "Hello" first, wait for a reply, and only then get to my point. It's a bit different if they expect it to be a longer chat or complex question. Then asking "Hey, do you have time"[1] is fine, because it's a genuine question that I could answer with either "sure" or "be with you in 10 mins". Then I am in control again and can focus finishing up until I get to them. I think that's the key here, being without control in that limbo zone between "hello" before finding out what the other person actually wants from you. [1] personally I will always write "Hey do you have time to chat about <3-5 word summary of the thing>" because again it's the polite thing to do, not wasting the other person's time. Also it's easy enough, and helps me formulate the point concisely for myself. It allows the other person to decide whether chatting about <the thing> is something they have time for instead of just having time in general.

by nxc18 8y ago

geofft 8y ago

The problem is I was already doing some other activity, and was interrupted. I'm happy to be interrupted if I can be helpful, I don't want to be interrupted when there's literally no point. Also, many people seem to want to get a reply to their "Hello" before they type more, so you have to switch over to the chat tab instead of just ignoring the notification.

aeternus 8y ago
Exactly, there are so many articles showing how costly context switches are, especially for software developers. By saying hi in a separate message you are forcing the recipient to perform a completely avoidable context switch while also priming them for another. A cordial greeting before an ask is mostly an empty gesture anyway. If you actually care how someone's day is going, ask in person or via a message with more substance.
jeffbr13 8y ago
I agree! In a way... I’ll see a “Hi!“ in a notification or followed by _x is typing_ then safely know that I can start slow context-switching out of whatever mode I’m in, start reviewing that block of work for check-in or noting the key takeaways to come back to, and start pre-loading whatever I was talking about with that person last, without the fear of “here’s a big block of text, please respond to it in kind (all right away)”. And more than that, I can also interrupt any incorrect lines of thought or rambling if it’s more rubber-ducking than a request, or turn it into more of a conversation than a message which can read “please do this” and a reply which says “um... let me get back to you”. I don’t know about you, but a large technical question or “hey can you... X Y Z” generates much more uncertainty than a chat between colleagues, even if the format is only different. Hell, modes of communication are a thing, we’d be as well use each one for its strengths.
mstade 8y ago
> The problem is I was already doing some other activity, and was interrupted. About a year or so ago I came up with a solution to this problem: turn off all notifications. I don't revive notifications for emails, chats, texts – anything except phone calls. That's the only thing. I also have a notice in my chat status at work, and wherever else it makes sense: "For urgent matters, please call me at <phone number>." It's worked wonders. I can choose to respond whenever I choose to check my messages, and for anything truly important people do call. It's happened maybe a half a dozen times over the past year that anyone's actually called, and typically whenever I'm non responsive in chat (because I didn't see it) I'll get an email instead, which generally has more detail in it anyway. This, along with using mornings to square away most correspondence, has worked wonders for my concentration. My afternoons are now mostly focus time, despite people texting and emailing. I just get back to them later. Maybe tomorrow morning.
- zapzupnz 8y ago
  > turn off all notifications For people whose job it is to be notified of things, likely the author the website included, how is this relevant? Not everybody has the liberty to choose when to check messages or respond to them, especially those who are using a chat system which usually demands an instantaneous response. People collaborating on projects, people working to a deadline, companies which favour Slack or similar systems over email, and in my own example, people on IT helpdesks. While I'm glad that you've managed to regain control of your routine, I'm not sure I see how it's relevant to the scenarios applicable to those hinted at through the context of the website.
  - geofft 8y ago
    Agree - as someone in the position where I do need to respond urgently to some messages, I find it very helpful for chat to interrupt me. For that to be productive, the interruptions need to be meaningful. Saying "no interruptions" doesn't solve my problem. And I do get some blocks of time when I can ignore all interruptions, in which case I just don't even open chat, instead of having it open and disabling notifications. (My job isn't weird; I'm an SRE on a support rotation. When I'm on support I need to see things urgently; when I'm not I can focus on project work and escalations can take the form of someone finding me and pulling the headphones off my ears if needed.) More fundamentally, not being around on the medium that most people at your company use in order to focus on project work is a great way to get left behind in terms of being aware of what the business is doing and what it values. People will slowly see you as the person who's great at finishing their own projects but not usefully responsive, and start treating you that way. Including when trying to assign new projects or during performance review season.

Kaveren 8y ago

Maybe I don't check [chat app] every time someone sends me a message. Let's say someone sends me a "hi" at 3:00 PM. I check it at 3:30 PM. I reply back. Person replies at 3:35 PM. I see this at 4:00 PM. An hour wasted! Maybe now I'm less available than I was, or want to stop working. This is why the "hi" alone is a waste of time. I do not want to be compelled to check [chat application] more often than I want to.

ehsankia 8y ago

The problem isn't even the wait between the two message, sometimes they won't even ask the question until you confirm that you are there. I want to look at the question, then decide if it's something I can answer now, or if I will get back to them later. It depends on many factors such as how busy I am, how complicated the question is, and so on. I could reply "Sort of, depends on your question", but realistically I'll just not reply if they don't ask a real question.

zapzupnz 8y ago

> You also avoid supporting the transparent money grab of a website dedicate to a needless complaint that is 90% ads I don't begrudge the person running the site to want to cover their expenses. Also, their complaint is not needless. It's a perfectly valid complaint. No need to be dismissive just because the site has ads, an issue unrelated from the core message imparted. As others state, the very fact of switching to the chat application just to see whether or not the other user has sent a message is a block to one's train of thought. The colleague mightn't be finishing typing their message until you respond, they might even engage you in some banter first — so you can't just ignore their lonely 'hi', you have to actually engage with it, wasting both of your time. The website manages to convey quite succinctly but not rudely a better way to communicate that one day could become a form of netiquette. There's nothing harmful with that.

tripzilch 8y ago

> You could just switch to some other activity while the colleague finishes typing their message. > With a very basic policy change to how you receive messages, you can totally avoid all inefficiency. That's nice, but not everybody's attention/focus works the same way. I can't do this, for instance. If I get a "hello" message, I can try and return to the task at hand, but the anticipation that I'm going to get another notification any random time now completely ruins my concentration. Trying to regain my focus and continue work takes me at least a minute or two of active effort ignoring that nagging feeling until it's quieter. During that time, of course, comes the second notification with the actual question. Replying to that will of course require my full attention anyway. So I don't usually spend the futile effort to regain focus and rather just zone out for a bit until the other person gets to their point, I can answer, and everything is over. And like everybody says, you can just put your "Hi!" in the same message as the question. I do that always. In fact I would feel I was being purposefully irritating if I sent a "Hello" first, wait for a reply, and only then get to my point. It's a bit different if they expect it to be a longer chat or complex question. Then asking "Hey, do you have time"[1] is fine, because it's a genuine question that I could answer with either "sure" or "be with you in 10 mins". Then I am in control again and can focus finishing up until I get to them. I think that's the key here, being without control in that limbo zone between "hello" before finding out what the other person actually wants from you. [1] personally I will always write "Hey do you have time to chat about <3-5 word summary of the thing>" because again it's the polite thing to do, not wasting the other person's time. Also it's easy enough, and helps me formulate the point concisely for myself. It allows the other person to decide whether chatting about <the thing> is something they have time for instead of just having time in general.