4 ms·

Remember that back in the day your computer was not online 24/7/365. Away messages were really useful, because without them someone would have to literally sit

Remember that back in the day your computer was not online 24/7/365. Away messages were really useful, because without them someone would have to literally sit at their chat window when you were online and wait for you to respond. If you were offline, there was no away message, and no way to send you a message at all. I was one of a handful of people who wrote AIM bots for things like store-and-forward messaging. You tell the bot who you want to talk to and your message, and when they came back online the bot would send them your message. This completed the functionality we all needed: just make sure my message gets to the person eventually. I don't think we want to bring back that experience. Facebook and WhatsApp and other messengers already give the ability to send a message when someone is offline, as well as letting you have a live interaction when online. All someone needs to do is set themselves as 'offline' and they can still get messages without having to respond. I think this is the right balance. The away message only makes sense if you want to be online and simultaneously tell people you aren't responding. Well, if you're not responding, why not just set yourself as offline? However, I do like the idea of the away message as a polite OOO message. "Hello, I'm in the Adirondacks this weekend, I won't be back in contact until Monday." In this way you can politely tell friends why you're not responding and when they can try again.

amelius 4y ago
> "Hello, I'm in the Adirondacks this weekend, I won't be back in contact until Monday." In this way you can politely tell friends why you're not responding and when they can try again. I'd like to allow people to contact me when I'm on a holiday, but it should take them some effort. Like "You can contact me, but first solve this puzzle".
cupofpython 4y ago
>If you were offline, there was no away message, and no way to send you a message at all. This was a feature. email already existed. phone calls already existed. AIM provided new information about a persons availability in that they were currently online and open to communications. If I didnt want to talk to people, I could not sign on to aim. Respecting peoples personal space was a default. Now it is ambiguous. Does this person want to talk right now? They are online, but that means absolutely nothing now.
- Melatonic 4y ago
  True - but is falling back to email really that big of a difference? It just means more work and one more username and protocol to remember. We could have better "offline" modes available on current messengers while still not just completely tossing the message.
  - cupofpython 4y ago
    >one more username and protocol to remember maybe i am old, but the messenger service is the "one more username" to remember. i would drop messenger services before i drop email. messenger services tend to be linked to email accounts anyway - so im sure low friction solutions could be developed. The point is to isolate sync communication from async to preserve the simulation of live conversation as an option online. the issue is compounded because the person who sent the message may not be available when i see the message. Messenger was developed for people to talk at the same time. Honestly, it seems like product overreach for it to accommodate any async communication. Async communication is a very important form of communication and should be managed appropriately and not shoe-horned into live chat UI's. IMO async should always be threaded. If I would be changing my messaging behavior based on whether or not someone is online (which is sort of necessary to avoid confusion) - I would rather optimize that behavior change with two different (UI) systems than trying to use one chat box and one log for it all. If someone is not in the room anymore, you cant talk to them. Full stop. Leaving the room is a signal that needs to be respected. It is one of the few powers individuals have in an actual conversation. Getting rid of simulated "rooms" online was a step backwards. Even if it happened during a simultaneous step forward for mailboxes.
    - Melatonic 4y ago
      Not arguing for or against email over chat - just pointing out that there's more to remember. Not to mention that you might share one form of communication with someone you just met (say a stranger you give your AIM handle) who then would not know your email at all. The whole point of all chat apps is that you are not physically in the same room already so I'm not sure that we need to be perfectly replicating that. And even so - if you are in a room where you know the person will be returning - you can easily leave a hand written note if you really wanted to. I am not sure where that quote is from (The point being to isolate sync and async) as I do not see it in the article unless I missed it. I think a lot of this is also indicative of a generational divide - I was an early user of AIM for example and I always remember it being relatively async. There was not a huge expectation that just because you were online and not away that you were always at the computer and constantly replying. All of this just generally seems like dissatisfaction with the social issues that have developed around all of these technologies in modern times - people EXPECT way too much. Too much is normalized. This is stressing people out. And I think we need to start there to fix it instead of trying to band-aid the problem with tech fix.
thewebcount 4y ago
> However, I do like the idea of the away message as a polite OOO message. "Hello, I'm in the Adirondacks this weekend, I won't be back in contact until Monday." In this way you can politely tell friends why you're not responding and when they can try again. Great, now the random "Hot asian chicks" who message me (and 50 other people) with sexually explicit content will know I'm not at home and can burglarize me in addition to wasting my time with spam!
mherdeg 4y ago
Historically it was useful to write a bot that told you when someone's AIM presence info changed because it actually told you they were sitting down in front of their desktop PC in the computer room and maybe interested in having a conversation. You could infer a lot of signal from this bit of info -- like, what room in the house are they in, what's going on in the cadence of their day, did they just finish dinner? The context is just totally different today. Many people are constantly carrying a phone and pretty close to always interruptible. Whether "it's a good time to talk" I think is harder to determine than it used to be. Practices and cultures vary widely so I hate to generalize but, at least for the people I know, something has changed with how online people are and our social connections to one another.
BaculumMeumEst 4y ago
> I was one of a handful of people who wrote AIM bots for things like store-and-forward messaging. You tell the bot who you want to talk to and your message, and when they came back online the bot would send them your message. Why would you make a chat program into "email with extra steps" instead of just sending an email?
- aidenn0 4y ago
  Because there were lots of people who would login to AIM, but not check their email?
  - stevehawk 4y ago
    I want to say that there were people with AIM accounts but no email.. was an email address required for AIM back then?
    - vel0city 4y ago
      For at least some period of time you did not need an email address to make an AIM account.
    - aidenn0 4y ago
      Pretty much all ISPs included at least one email, but it is certainly possible that some family members lacked a personal e-mail. My first e-mail was aidenn@geocities.com, but I forgot the password and had no way to recover it since it was my only e-mail, so I added a zero to the end and re-registered. Say what you want about yahoo, but that e-mail address still works!
- atribecalledqst 4y ago
  When I was growing up AIM was the method to chat with my friends online. I don't think I knew any of their email addresses. If someone was offline, I would just have to wait until they came online. I could definitely see a bot like this being useful back then.
- throwaway892238 4y ago

amelius 4y ago

> "Hello, I'm in the Adirondacks this weekend, I won't be back in contact until Monday." In this way you can politely tell friends why you're not responding and when they can try again. I'd like to allow people to contact me when I'm on a holiday, but it should take them some effort. Like "You can contact me, but first solve this puzzle".

cupofpython 4y ago

>If you were offline, there was no away message, and no way to send you a message at all. This was a feature. email already existed. phone calls already existed. AIM provided new information about a persons availability in that they were currently online and open to communications. If I didnt want to talk to people, I could not sign on to aim. Respecting peoples personal space was a default. Now it is ambiguous. Does this person want to talk right now? They are online, but that means absolutely nothing now.

Melatonic 4y ago
True - but is falling back to email really that big of a difference? It just means more work and one more username and protocol to remember. We could have better "offline" modes available on current messengers while still not just completely tossing the message.
- cupofpython 4y ago
  >one more username and protocol to remember maybe i am old, but the messenger service is the "one more username" to remember. i would drop messenger services before i drop email. messenger services tend to be linked to email accounts anyway - so im sure low friction solutions could be developed. The point is to isolate sync communication from async to preserve the simulation of live conversation as an option online. the issue is compounded because the person who sent the message may not be available when i see the message. Messenger was developed for people to talk at the same time. Honestly, it seems like product overreach for it to accommodate any async communication. Async communication is a very important form of communication and should be managed appropriately and not shoe-horned into live chat UI's. IMO async should always be threaded. If I would be changing my messaging behavior based on whether or not someone is online (which is sort of necessary to avoid confusion) - I would rather optimize that behavior change with two different (UI) systems than trying to use one chat box and one log for it all. If someone is not in the room anymore, you cant talk to them. Full stop. Leaving the room is a signal that needs to be respected. It is one of the few powers individuals have in an actual conversation. Getting rid of simulated "rooms" online was a step backwards. Even if it happened during a simultaneous step forward for mailboxes.
  - Melatonic 4y ago
    Not arguing for or against email over chat - just pointing out that there's more to remember. Not to mention that you might share one form of communication with someone you just met (say a stranger you give your AIM handle) who then would not know your email at all. The whole point of all chat apps is that you are not physically in the same room already so I'm not sure that we need to be perfectly replicating that. And even so - if you are in a room where you know the person will be returning - you can easily leave a hand written note if you really wanted to. I am not sure where that quote is from (The point being to isolate sync and async) as I do not see it in the article unless I missed it. I think a lot of this is also indicative of a generational divide - I was an early user of AIM for example and I always remember it being relatively async. There was not a huge expectation that just because you were online and not away that you were always at the computer and constantly replying. All of this just generally seems like dissatisfaction with the social issues that have developed around all of these technologies in modern times - people EXPECT way too much. Too much is normalized. This is stressing people out. And I think we need to start there to fix it instead of trying to band-aid the problem with tech fix.

thewebcount 4y ago

> However, I do like the idea of the away message as a polite OOO message. "Hello, I'm in the Adirondacks this weekend, I won't be back in contact until Monday." In this way you can politely tell friends why you're not responding and when they can try again. Great, now the random "Hot asian chicks" who message me (and 50 other people) with sexually explicit content will know I'm not at home and can burglarize me in addition to wasting my time with spam!

mherdeg 4y ago

Historically it was useful to write a bot that told you when someone's AIM presence info changed because it actually told you they were sitting down in front of their desktop PC in the computer room and maybe interested in having a conversation. You could infer a lot of signal from this bit of info -- like, what room in the house are they in, what's going on in the cadence of their day, did they just finish dinner? The context is just totally different today. Many people are constantly carrying a phone and pretty close to always interruptible. Whether "it's a good time to talk" I think is harder to determine than it used to be. Practices and cultures vary widely so I hate to generalize but, at least for the people I know, something has changed with how online people are and our social connections to one another.

BaculumMeumEst 4y ago

> I was one of a handful of people who wrote AIM bots for things like store-and-forward messaging. You tell the bot who you want to talk to and your message, and when they came back online the bot would send them your message. Why would you make a chat program into "email with extra steps" instead of just sending an email?

aidenn0 4y ago
Because there were lots of people who would login to AIM, but not check their email?
- stevehawk 4y ago
  I want to say that there were people with AIM accounts but no email.. was an email address required for AIM back then?
  - vel0city 4y ago
    For at least some period of time you did not need an email address to make an AIM account.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    Pretty much all ISPs included at least one email, but it is certainly possible that some family members lacked a personal e-mail. My first e-mail was aidenn@geocities.com, but I forgot the password and had no way to recover it since it was my only e-mail, so I added a zero to the end and re-registered. Say what you want about yahoo, but that e-mail address still works!
atribecalledqst 4y ago
When I was growing up AIM was the method to chat with my friends online. I don't think I knew any of their email addresses. If someone was offline, I would just have to wait until they came online. I could definitely see a bot like this being useful back then.
throwaway892238 4y ago