I think there are a number of major flaws in the interface of all current IM systems. These flaws lead to a number of dysfunctional forms of interaction. I think that most of these flaws are due to the fact that IM systems are a direct descendent of email.
Now, this is something I can’t absolutely prove, but I think that ICQ (the first IM program I’m aware of) was designed to fill certain gaps in email designs. I think it was designed to better facilitate rapid-fire back and forth conversations. They still happen via email and forums and I’ve had some in LJ comments. You can see suggestions that this was the intended solution in the fact that IMs are push-based (rather than pull-based), and the fact that early IM systems allowed you to send messages to people who were offline. It was very much a modified email system.
But taking email realtime without modifying it created a number of issues. This is due, in part, because email is itself a direct evolution from paper letters, which were never intended to be a synchronous form of communication.
So, let’s look at that. One of the big issues is that while IM conversations tend to have clear entry points (you know when the conversation starts), they don’t have clear exit points. Conversations tend to trail off rather than end. You don’t know if the other person is considering your points or simply ignoring you because unlike a face to face conversation you have no non-verbal clues, and unlike a phone conversation you don’t have a clear moment of disconnection when the conversation ends. This can lead to confusion because not every participant is on the same page with regard to the state of the discussion.
There’s another problem which arises, this one based more, I think, upon the way that IM programs have evolved rather than based upon holdovers from previous modes of communication. The problem is, simply put, that to make yourself available for any conversation, you must do so for all conversations. But what if there is only a subset of the people on your buddy list that you feel up to talking to? Sucks to be you. Further, being available makes you available to people you may not know, and sometimes you’re just not up to meeting new people.
There’s more, and I could go more in-depth, but my relief’s here so I’m going to go get some food. Feel free, as always, to drop comments or questions. I’d love to discuss this.
Thomas
I don’t think I’ve really ever had to deal with this ‘messages from people I don’t know’ thing. My IM name is accessible from my user info at a number of websites and it’s not really been a problem.
The problem is, simply put, that to make yourself available for any conversation, you must do so for all conversations.
Untrue on two levels. I speak on behalf of AIM. people create multiple screen names and dispense the information about those screennames to certain people. Several clients allow for multiple concurrent logins.
Also, AIM has a “private” feature through which you can only be seen by either people on your buddy list, or people whom you contact. I don’t use all those features, but I think there’s also one where you can create an LJ-like filter to be “offline” to all but a particular part of your buddy list.
It would be more useful to me if instead of making a new IM client, the collective unconscious created a new understanding of IM.
Perhaps the *only* new feature I’d like is to know if people on my buddy list have a window/tab open for our discussion. Similar to the “______ is typing” feature, it would be subtle body language as to whether a conversation is continuing or not. For different people it would have different meanings, and the collective unconscious would have to develop a new understanding of that feature, too (ie: what it means to you is not what it means to everyone else), but it might be handy.
I’m a fan of it being a personal responsibility of communications to indicate exit points in conversations. Some conversations don’t have exit points, but that’s how things are. I liken it to hanging out, reading, in the same room as my friends. They’re my friends and we understand that it’s cool to spot random crap/links at odd intervals and each one doesn’t need to lead to a long thing. Also, when I have trouble signing off AIM to go to bed, or go do what I need to, I know that it’s all on me.
For me, IM is often vastly superior to talking on the phone. Thank god I have IM (read: txt messages) on my phone. But that’s a slightly different matter.
I disagree in terminology that IM is a direct evolution of email. IM doesn’t even have close to the same relationship to email that email does to letters. It’s more speciation than evolution. Email was nowhere close to replaced by the advent of IM. Instant messaging is much more like the bastard child of email and IRC (which was around in 88). Very powerful bastard child. I’m not claiming to know internet history, just saying what history/evolution makes sense for my experiences.
I know you call IM push-based… but I’m not so sure it is across the board. I don’t know what your definitions are, so let’s try that first.
comment is longer than original post. what do I win? xD
First!
Also, AIM has a “private” feature through which you can only be seen by either people on your buddy list, or people whom you contact. I don’t use all those features, but I think there’s also one where you can create an LJ-like filter to be “offline” to all but a particular part of your buddy list.
AIM itself, at least as far as I can tell, has three settings. (There may have been a fourth in the newest release, I am not sure.) These are Available, Away, and Invisible. There may be a “Private” setting such as the one you’re talking about, but I’m not familiar with it. These are, and this is key, server-side settings. What this means is that you can’t be Away to some people and not others, nor can you be Invisible to some and not others.
While you are free to start conversations while Invisible, and thus alert specific people to your online status, you can not make yourself generally available for conversation to that limited subset. And if you’re both set to Invisible then it’s likely that neither of you will instigate a conversation. This is something I feel needs to change.
Your suggestion to have an indicator for open windows is interesting. I’m not sure it would serve as a very good indicator of opened/closed conversations, but I think it is unlikely that this would be a bad feature to integrate if it could be done with ease.
The problem with your hanging out metaphor (one I’ve contemplated in the past) is that when you’re sitting in the same room as someone reading you know that the other person is available for input because you can see that they’re in the room. The same is not true with IM. I don’t know if you’ve walked out of the room, or if you’ve done something more subtle like put on your headphones and tuned me out. These are things that are super-easy to convey non-verbally, but at least so far have not been conveyed verbally.
I’ll give you the terminology swap if you want. It’s clear that IM systems have evolved fairly significantly from the old ICQ days and things have become more IRC-like than they once were. That said, I’m still pretty convinced that IM systems were a direct response to rapid-fire email conversations and thus are structured very similarly at a conceptual level.
Push-based, in this context, means that actions on the receiver’s system are instigated by the sender. That is, I tell your computer when to display a message from me. This is notably different from a forum or email or RSS where readers have to intentionally seek new data. Those are pull-based systems.
Thomas
I’ll write “I am a WINNER!” on a nametag and you can wear it around and feel special?
Thomas
by private, i meant invisible. I know for a fact that within invisible you can be invisible to everyone, or just people not on your buddy list. Actually… that might be ICQ. I use ichat and deadAIM, so I don’t really deal with those issues.
How important is the offline/away distinction to you?
The problem with your hanging out metaphor (one I’ve contemplated in the past) is that when you’re sitting in the same room as someone reading you know that the other person is available for input because you can see that they’re in the room. The same is not true with IM. I don’t know if you’ve walked out of the room, or if you’ve done something more subtle like put on your headphones and tuned me out. These are things that are super-easy to convey non-verbally, but at least so far have not been conveyed verbally.
Status messages my friend. Besides, if you’re tuning people out, why are you on IM? And if we’re just hanging out and I say something, I don’t really care if you respond. I’m probably just sharing a link.
If we talked earlier and the conversation petered out (with is more appropriate online than it is in person), there are ways I can revive the conversation that indicate it’s time to converse again, or that I’m just sharing a tidbit. IM conversations are just fluid.
The push/pull thing is interesting, and while I agree for the most part, couldn’t you say that opening an IM program is a user-based action that seeks input? :P
Okay, the invisible to people not on your buddy list is interesting, but I think perhaps not that big a deal. As Shreyas pointed out in his earlier comment: random people you don’t know don’t seem to IM very often.
The offline/away distinction is… I’m not sure. I think important. This is mainly due to the fact that a lot of people I know use Away Messages to do a lot more than indicate that they’re not available. I’ve got at least one friend who often has a little note that you’re welcome to ping them but that there’s a lot going on and it may take some time to get back to you.
Also, from a technical standpoint, you can leave someone a message to respond to if they’re away, but not if they’re offline.
Here’s the thing, though. I agree that Status Messages are great. I think my concern is more along the lines of this:
I have person X on my buddy list. I like person X, we get along well, but sometimes talking to person X is a very draining experience. I also have person Y on my buddy list. Person Y and I are best friends from high school who ended up in different states for college. Talking to person Y is always exciting and energizing. Some days I am tired, and I want person Y to know that I’m around and available to talk, but I just don’t feel up to dealing with person X.
While a possible solution is to use multiple screen names, I consider that to be considerably less than awesome. I think, based upon a very cursory look, that Jabber is positioned to solve a lot of these problems, which would be awesome.
I think that opening an IM program very much is an entry into social space, at least for people who have to do so consciously. However, it’s important to remember that most basic IM clients (MSM, AIM, and Y!M) all install themselves to start on computer startup. If you’re on a broadband connection then turning on your computer puts you in that space, so it may not be so intentional after all.
Thomas
last thing first: be a human and set the options so you’re not online as soon as you log on.
and first thing next: random messages is an issue for people who are more internet famous. Reagan gets on his main AIM name (the one that’s been around forever), and gets swamped by like 15 people in 2 minutes. That’s why he has multiple SNs (two). Another artist I know is the same way.
But the part where you talk about your “concern”… sounds like you’re trying to solve a lacking in social skills with technology. Some people might even say lying is a social skill. The private/invisible setting could solve that (ping person Y) as could “Away” with the same ping-solution, or your old friend “block” can solve that. Just unblock person X when you’re willing to talk again. :P
But the part where you talk about your “concern”… sounds like you’re trying to solve a lacking in social skills with technology.
Here is the thing… You say this, and perhaps unintentionally, it comes across as slightly contemptuous. But it’s sort of true, though I wouldn’t put it that way. What I want to do is design technological tools that make it easy to do what it is you actually do.
So, here’s an example: why invent IM at all? People have email, and you can just do rapid fire email exchanges. You invent IM because it makes it easier to have that sort of interaction. It’s not “using technology to solve lack of rapid-fire email skills”, rigt?
I think that interfaces should enable us to work the way we work, not force us to work around them. You say: change the settings. I say: those settings shouldn’t be something you have to change, they should default to off. You say use selective blocking, or hope that the person you want to talk to (Y) isn’t also invisible when you log on as invisible to avoid X. I say the system should facilitate you avoiding those problems.
Do you see what I’m getting at? It’s not that the only thing I want to do is have systems which make it easier to do things you already do, I do want to do new stuff too, but a big part of what I want is systems that don’t require elaborate skills to use as you want.
Thomas