2 ms·
This is an interesting opinion. Are you saying that you don't want to have more than a name and an email address for a contact and just have all communication a
by stanleydrew 13y ago
This is an interesting opinion. Are you saying that you don't want to have more than a name and an email address for a contact and just have all communication apps use the email address as the identifier?
I had thought this too at one point until I realized that having more than one identifier implicitly allows me to segment my communications in an easy way. For instance, I can give my email address to Macy's instead of my phone number, and I know I'll only get asynchronous textual information from them. But I can give my phone number to someone at a bar, and know that I am implicitly allowing them to interrupt me with a call or text message.
So I get a communications permissions system for free when I have more than one identifier. But clearly it's not efficient to have 100 different identifiers, one for each network. So we need to settle somewhere in the middle I think.
- ChrisArchitect 13y agoI meant keeping our contact lists basic and of real information like names and an email (email being a good base block for net stuff/identification/comms because the domain etc) instead of 10 other accounts to keep track of for all our contact list/address book entries. On the 'communications permissions system' tip, yeah, ok, useful to direct certain things via different networks, but instead of numbers and cryptic pins, keep it to names.... Address Book entry: Name & facebook: ChrisArchitect email, IM: ...@....com (translates to a searchable contact on other nets like twitter too)
- ChrisArchitect 13y ago... oh and furthermore, all using base internet technologies and IP networks instead of seperate private nets and god forbid the cellular network used for SMS that should be dead by now. Thus bringing interoperability etc too