This link has been bookmarked by 17 people . It was first bookmarked on 31 Jul 2006, by Kevin Wen.
-
29 May 08
-
21 Sep 07
-
03 May 07
-
26 Oct 06
-
20 Sep 06
J. DunnOn how different people treat IM very differently. Always-on vs. explicitly logging on to talk, and the varying expectations of the medium and of other users that correspond to those use-patterns, and the conflicts and misunderstandings that can ensue.
culture culture.web culture.communication tech tech.computers tech.computers.im
-
06 Aug 06
-
31 Jul 06
-
05 Jun 06
Clair ChingThe problem with IM is that the always-on'rs have gotten far more comfortable with the technology than those who still see it as a communication tool, not just a desirable presence tool. The cultural divide is very much magnified by experience and time sp
communication technology messaging social culture internet for:agahran
-
15 Jun 05
-
cultural divide in IM: presence vs. communication
-
-
12 Mar 05
-
11 Mar 05
-
To most of my friends, i appear always-on. If i'm not on the computer, my IMs usually go to my Sidekick. I have a round-the-clock presence on AIM, even if frequently idle. I share this round-the-clockness with some of my buddies - people who always appear to be on, although sometimes idle. There are other buddies who pop up whenever they're on their computer (often 9-5). Then, there are those who pop up very occasionally. The thing about members of this latter category is that they *always* want to talk when they come online. This makes sense - they're appearing online only to talk, not to share presence. They are seeing IM as a communication tool first and foremost. Interestingly, it is this group that complains the most about how they can never get anything done when IM is on. I try really hard not to respond in a snarky voice that i can never get anything done when they're on. They get upset when i don't have time to talk, arguing that i shouldn't be online if i don't want to talk. There is, in fact, a culture divide in instant messaging. ... The problem with IM is that the always-on'rs have gotten far more comfortable with the technology than those who still see it as a communication tool, not just a desirable presence tool. The cultural divide is very much magnified by experience and time spent engaged in the technology. Of course, the split happens around those who recognize the value of presence and want to do what it takes culturally to retain that.
-
To most of my friends, i appear always-on. If i'm not on the computer, my IMs usually go to my Sidekick. I have a round-the-clock presence on AIM, even if frequently idle. I share this round-the-clockness with some of my buddies - people who always appear to be on, although sometimes idle. There are other buddies who pop up whenever they're on their computer (often 9-5). Then, there are those who pop up very occasionally. The thing about members of this latter category is that they *always* want to talk when they come online. This makes sense - they're appearing online only to talk, not to share presence. They are seeing IM as a communication tool first and foremost. Interestingly, it is this group that complains the most about how they can never get anything done when IM is on. I try really hard not to respond in a snarky voice that i can never get anything done when they're on. They get upset when i don't have time to talk, arguing that i shouldn't be online if i don't want to talk. There is, in fact, a culture divide in instant messaging. ... The problem with IM is that the always-on'rs have gotten far more comfortable with the technology than those who still see it as a communication tool, not just a desirable presence tool. The cultural divide is very much magnified by experience and time spent engaged in the technology. Of course, the split happens around those who recognize the value of presence and want to do what it takes culturally to retain that.
-
-
16 Feb 05
-
15 Feb 05
-
14 Feb 05
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.