Live data from Hacker News

Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

blog.doist.com

101–110 of 220 posts

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#101

One interesting challenge with this real-time vs. async communication challenge is that different job roles have different needs. At my company, most of our employees have been on the customer service side until recently, and Slack is great for them. Almost everything they need to talk about is urgent (even if it's not important) and temporary. They rarely have long-lasting high-level conversations. Now we're startin…

I don't believe that one should try to create a single tool that covers both synchronous and asynchronous. Their UX is too different.

It seems to me a better idea to create an asynchronous deep collaboration tool and integrate it with synchronous tools like Slack.

The bigger question to me is what should an asynchronous deep collaboration tool do (if anything) beyond first-class threads.

In my mind the opportunity lies on three dimensions

1) Bringing updatable content and structure to threads. This makes threads vastly more useful for real collaboration (not just communication).

2) Making "catchup" much more efficient as this is the main problem with email.

If you think of one of the most successful asynchronous collaboration approaches, it's source control like git. The key thing that these tools to is make changes "diffable". That allows users to work at completely different points in time and still easily "catchup" with what's changed.

3) Allow regular users to easily convert unstructured one-off threads to semi-structured template threads. This naturally and gently moves teams to greater process-orientation.

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never heard of react vs respond. I wonder if you could explain a bit of what it means?

Here's a solid article: https://zenhabits.net/respond/

thanks so ever much!

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#103
post #92
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then there is Google Docs for persistent, collaborative communications.

Documents for communication ? Seems clunky at best.

You are probably comparing it to real time communication. It is still communication, just like leaving notes on a refrigerator is communication.

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#104
post #71
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The online presence indicator is one of the problems created by Slack. Using real-time chat is the actual problem, whether it's Slack or Hipchat, or anything alike. Real-time is great sometime, but I don't think you should use it all the time: - Real-time chat happens quickly — one line at a time — discouraging full, thoughtful conversations. - Topics are all jumbled together in a channel so it’s nearly impossible to…

Real-time chat happens quickly — one line at a time — discouraging full, thoughtful conversations. Slack supports shift+CRLF for line breaks, so users can write epic poems broken up in to hundreds of stanzas if they want to. Using Slack as a one-line-at-a-time chat service is a choice that a user makes. Slack itself doesn't enforce it. Topics are all jumbled together in a channel so it’s nearly impossible to piece to…

> Using Slack as a one-line-at-a-time chat service is a choice that a user makes. Slack itself doesn't enforce it.

Thats like saying you can drive your car with your feet, the car doesn't enforce driving by hands. The point of this post is saying that slack has these shortcoming by the nature of its design. You can make as many arguments as you want defending it, but everything has a design that influences usage.

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#105
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are shift+enter newlines "totally against the grain of the system design"? Most every chat system I'm aware of supports this and displays it in a sane way. If people are misusing the system, training/instruction is in order.

It may seem like a little thing, but you have to be very careful while typing not to accidentally press Enter. I've found this to be surprisingly difficult, and it makes typing a lot more stressful.

For a while gmail had this ui "feature" where or string-of-characters would send an email without prompting.

I still fear the web UI. I guess emailing out bullet lists was against the implicit use case the gmail UI team had in mind.

Stuff like this definitely changes how tools are used.

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#106
post #91

As an ex-IBMer with 10 years of dealing with Sametime, I find this discussion amusing. Just think of Slack but with 300,000+ in your team. Sametime was a big part of IBM culture. IBMs work from home policy was tied up with it. At work means you are online and responsive to Sametime. A typical meeting involves people sitting in a conference room Sametiming comments to each other about the speaker. One nice thing about…

The last company I worked for had an IBM fanboy as CEO who wanted to do all internal communication with IBM tools. Domino, Notes, Sametime. I think these were the worst tools I ever had to use in my whole career. Even after they rewrote the UI with Eclipse later.

Yeah, Notes is basically written in the Lotus 123 spreadsheet scripting language :-) Eclipse just made it worse. Obligatory http://www.ihatelotusnotes.com/

The one positive comment I can make is that you did end up with a unified enterprise-wide set of collaboration tools.

Oh there was a new tool I hated before IBM decided to get on the git bandwagon: Rational Team Concert- project management and source control tied into one. Imagine having to start a giant 500 MB Java application to "git checkout". (In fact the project management part was OK, just using it for source control was horrible).

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#107
How is Twist (the product they announce in this post) much different from email? Besides not using open protocols? Don't get me wrong, it looks like a beautifully designed email client. There are some interesting features here but it seems like you could do this all using existing email features. Am I wrong?

The choice of asynchronhous vs. synchronous is a false dichotomy. Development teams I have been on use a combination of both since forever. Before Slack/Hipchat there was XMPP/Jabber before that was IRC. It must be business people binging on the glory of synchronous communication then having a hangover. In my experience this has never been an issue.

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#108
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The notion that tools exist in some sort of vacuum away from users baffles me This x1000 Software is developed and used in a social context. We can't disavow responsibility for the effects our Software cause.

Here's why someone may disagree: Your company has hammers and screw drivers as your tools. If your employees only know how to use hammers, they are going to hammer screws. If your team only knows how to use screw drivers, they will shrug at nails. Hence, the tool is not always at fault for end user error. Learning how and when it is appropriate to use the tools at hand is important.

Nobody actually hammers screws because it's obvious how the tools are intended to be used and that isn't it.

Re: Why we’re betting against real-time team messaging

#110
post #73
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you kind of ended up with e-mail :)

Usenet news. 1. You enter groups devoted to large topics (like "all company" or "software development" or maybe "Smith Project") 2. You see conversations delimited by subject lines, completely threaded, with full history. 3. You normally reply to a message with another message, quoting or not, and your message is threaded in. 4. The tools are good for showing you what you haven't read yet. 5. You can ignore a topic f…

Wow, I love all these features! You're not saying it:

10. Has open-source implementations,

11. Allows HTML formatting,

12. Has a hierarchy of topics, splitting up topics in a generic way,

13. Is blazingly fast,

14. AND allows referencing specific articles using an URI scheme: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5538 ?

Post reply on HN