30 ms·

> This is inferior to the pop-in for the interrupter, but superior for the interruptee I don't see how either of those are true for phone calls. 1. It's ideal

> This is inferior to the pop-in for the interrupter, but superior for the interruptee I don't see how either of those are true for phone calls. 1. It's ideal for the interrupter: they get to decide when they want your time. They want it now. 2. It's annoying for the interruptee, because you only have two options. Either you can pick up the phone now and force a hard context switch away what you were doing, or you can reject the call and spend more time later listening through voicemails. And unless you have voicemail transcriptions, you're at the complete mercy of the interrupter again. Compare that to asynchronous text-based communication, where the interrupter can't forcefully take your time from you. They can only message you, and you can decide when to read it. Reading the message doesn't cede control of your time to them, and you can adjust the actual time of the call to accommodate whatever you're working on.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jeffbr13 4y ago
I found it helps to set boundaries and in one instance make it clear that I do not appreciate being called out of the blue. I feel almost everyone understands that a texting before a call is polite these days. Clarification was only required once for a colleague who tried dialling me into a meeting I wasn’t party to, just to ask me some questions that could have been an IM. They were actually a little younger, and so I think it was more a case of realising your impact on other people (who may be in or trying to achieve flow) if you interrupt them because it seems urgent to you. Like the article notes, the open plan office engendered interruptions too easily because it was convenient rather than urgent. As a millennial I suppose I fall in between the two camps. When I was younger, social anxiety about taking up people’s valuable time with my silly questions made a phone call seem like a terrible burden to subject someone to, but with age and (remote work) experience, I’ve realised that conversations are indeed much higher bandwidth and often appreciated more than a letter or thread of back-and-forth clarifications. If I _had_ to stereotype by generation (sorry GP) I could say voice and video seem easier than reading and writing for boomers and Gen-Zs, but even that doesn’t sound right. It’s probably just a communication style thing. There’s a reason many of us struggle to read a book when we can watch some TV instead. As humans we communicate with our voice, face, and body. The main benefit of text is asynchronicity. The challenge is how to thread the needle of asynchronicity in an increasingly post-literate world.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  >There’s a reason many of us struggle to read a book when we can watch some TV instead. Most people don't watch TV to obtain information, yet at the same time, videos can convey information better than a book would thanks to audio and video. Quality audio and video material far surpass books when they augment the original text-only format. Shoddy video material is still preferred over shoddy writing for reasons beyond conveying information. And that's the real issue. People are using bad writing and asynchronous communication skills as a cop-out to push more, not realizing their other communication skills are just as poor. Sure, the guy waving his warms during a presentation feels more humane, but how much does it really add one week after? You're stuck only with the notes he left, the notes you made (probably none) and your own memory probably muddied along the way. It's the same for meetings or any kind of call. Taking notes takes far longer if you ask the one conveying information to slow down so you can keep up. Most people are awful at communication in any form, and half of the problem comes from them trying to blame the medium or believing they are better using a different medium or it's flat-out the medium's fault. Newsflash: it's probably you, not the medium. It's most astounding this has to be told to developers of all people. The field moves fast, new information is thrown out at rapid pace, the work is mostly mentally straining and you're expected to know a lot. Surely, that alone would make enough people question whether fast-paced, transient communication is a great fit. Writing is easier to point at people and say "this doesn't make sense" without the answer being another call.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jeffbr13 4y ago

I found it helps to set boundaries and in one instance make it clear that I do not appreciate being called out of the blue. I feel almost everyone understands that a texting before a call is polite these days. Clarification was only required once for a colleague who tried dialling me into a meeting I wasn’t party to, just to ask me some questions that could have been an IM. They were actually a little younger, and so I think it was more a case of realising your impact on other people (who may be in or trying to achieve flow) if you interrupt them because it seems urgent to you. Like the article notes, the open plan office engendered interruptions too easily because it was convenient rather than urgent. As a millennial I suppose I fall in between the two camps. When I was younger, social anxiety about taking up people’s valuable time with my silly questions made a phone call seem like a terrible burden to subject someone to, but with age and (remote work) experience, I’ve realised that conversations are indeed much higher bandwidth and often appreciated more than a letter or thread of back-and-forth clarifications. If I _had_ to stereotype by generation (sorry GP) I could say voice and video seem easier than reading and writing for boomers and Gen-Zs, but even that doesn’t sound right. It’s probably just a communication style thing. There’s a reason many of us struggle to read a book when we can watch some TV instead. As humans we communicate with our voice, face, and body. The main benefit of text is asynchronicity. The challenge is how to thread the needle of asynchronicity in an increasingly post-literate world.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
>There’s a reason many of us struggle to read a book when we can watch some TV instead. Most people don't watch TV to obtain information, yet at the same time, videos can convey information better than a book would thanks to audio and video. Quality audio and video material far surpass books when they augment the original text-only format. Shoddy video material is still preferred over shoddy writing for reasons beyond conveying information. And that's the real issue. People are using bad writing and asynchronous communication skills as a cop-out to push more, not realizing their other communication skills are just as poor. Sure, the guy waving his warms during a presentation feels more humane, but how much does it really add one week after? You're stuck only with the notes he left, the notes you made (probably none) and your own memory probably muddied along the way. It's the same for meetings or any kind of call. Taking notes takes far longer if you ask the one conveying information to slow down so you can keep up. Most people are awful at communication in any form, and half of the problem comes from them trying to blame the medium or believing they are better using a different medium or it's flat-out the medium's fault. Newsflash: it's probably you, not the medium. It's most astounding this has to be told to developers of all people. The field moves fast, new information is thrown out at rapid pace, the work is mostly mentally straining and you're expected to know a lot. Surely, that alone would make enough people question whether fast-paced, transient communication is a great fit. Writing is easier to point at people and say "this doesn't make sense" without the answer being another call.