Can Slack-mania be cured with systemized discipline? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can Slack-mania be cured with systemized discipline?

#201

Post by ungamed » Sat, Feb 19, 2022, 7:43 AM UTC

nescioquid wrote: post #103

ungamed wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The business I work for has the same, it is branded "Naked pings suck".

That's grand and I'm envious. I guess what I'm suggesting is that if UX were grounded in HCI in any way, this would be the _primary_ problem to be addressed and is the issue which thereby outs UX as an over-priced modern-day hardware store color palette for the blind (primarily preoccupied only with forestalling law-suites). I guess my question, really, is what affordance could be surfaced to suggest this communicati…

> what affordance could be surfaced to suggest this communication medium is asynchronous and discourage this imposing behavior?

I was employed through the transformation of pre->post changes, It took about 6 months of consistent reminders on all communication mediums, it even become memeish at one point.

>I'm suggesting that there are major problems in the hinterland that have simply been ignored.

I strongly agree with this, the lack of 'deep work' that instant communication mediums have created has destroyed so much innovation, possibility and profit through its creation.

Ginsberg was a genius, but things have changed.

“I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the waking hours looking for slack notifications, burning for the modern digital connection to the dopamine laced cloud.”

Re: Can Slack-mania be cured with systemized discipline?

#202

Post by IggleSniggle » Sat, Feb 19, 2022, 9:50 PM UTC

dota_fanatic wrote: post #183

Falkon1313 wrote: post #146

This doesn't really sound like a problem with Slack, but rather a personal or cultural problem with a lack of setting or respecting boundaries. Slack has options to communicate: - that you're away - that you're on a call or in a meeting etc. - to pause notifications for an hour or whatever - to star the most relevant channels - to mute less-relevant channels - to leave irrelevant channels - to sideline conversations…

However, Slack doesn't allow you to a) stay alertable to a subset of the company (e.g. people you are working heads down with on a project) while b) ignoring everyone else in the company. Even if you stick those people in a common channel and mute the rest of the channels you are in, people can still jeopardize your focus with a single at-mention or DM. Just anyone can hijack your sidebar. Slack doesn't respect somet…

This isn’t a slack thing, it’s a humans thing. Whether it’s a telephone, a marked urgent email, am @mention, or whatever. If someone wants to get your attention, that’s not a technology problem.

Re: Can Slack-mania be cured with systemized discipline?

#203

Post by underwater » Sun, Feb 20, 2022, 11:29 PM UTC

ungamed wrote: post #200

charcircuit wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You add them to the cc list. I have very minimal experience using email, but doesn't this just add them to a new message as opposed to adding them to old messages?

Yes, in this case you explicitly introduce the reader with context, which is important when you have specific information that may be considered sensitive, or history that is not relevant. Anyone reading the "to" line can see where the reader was introduced.

I find workplaces that default to closed conversations, and require explicit reading in of new participants, to be poor places to work. It feels like people use connections, being involved in key discussions, and their ability to connect people, as social currency. This is good for them, bad for the rest of the organisation.

Re: Can Slack-mania be cured with systemized discipline?

#204

Post by mandelbrotwurst » Tue, Feb 22, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

icedchai wrote: post #82

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are "no-focus times"?

Some companies these days have so many interruptions (often in the form of Zoom meetings) that you need to dedicate "focus time" to get any actual work done.

Thanks, I thought that this person might have been describing something other than that because they said "no-focus" as opposed to "focus", and also because they made mention of scheduling meetings during "no-focus times".

I was wondering whether maybe "no-focus time" might have been something even wackier, like time in which it's explicitly encouraged to interrupt everyone as much as possible, which I know sounds silly, but you never know these days...

Re: Can Slack-mania be cured with systemized discipline?

#205

Post by ungamed » Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 2:25 PM UTC

underwater wrote: post #203

ungamed wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in this case you explicitly introduce the reader with context, which is important when you have specific information that may be considered sensitive, or history that is not relevant. Anyone reading the "to" line can see where the reader was introduced.

I find workplaces that default to closed conversations, and require explicit reading in of new participants, to be poor places to work. It feels like people use connections, being involved in key discussions, and their ability to connect people, as social currency. This is good for them, bad for the rest of the organisation.

I find it great, it saves me from information overload. For 'project' things, these often start on a mailing list and I can go back/search a mailing list if its that important.

I'll be honest to say, most things that is said in any communication medium is a complete waste of time. Having i searchable rather than forcing it on people globally is the only scalable option.