Email is not broken, we are.
joshualyman.com
Email is not broken, we are.
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: Email is not broken, we are.
#2This article is a wake up call, thank you.
Re: Email is not broken, we are.
#3Couldn't agree more. Email should be something like: "I want to know it, but I don't need to know it right now. Otherwise I should have called you." Let's try to get that back.
Re: Email is not broken, we are.
#4Couldn't agree more. Email should be something like: "I want to know it, but I don't need to know it right now. Otherwise I should have called you." Let's try to get that back.
Re: Email is not broken, we are.
#5Your article failed to address the main issue: security. Off by default is broken.
Re: Email is not broken, we are.
#6> When using email, sending tons of short, not fully formed messages is killing us. We need to take the time to construct useful, productive messages, something most of us are not doing.
That's true. Since I began writing well-formed longer emails I receive fewer ones and nearly no IM-style "yes.", "how about that?" anymore. It's also much more satisfying to write and, I hope, to read.
Re: Email is not broken, we are.
#7I've seen evidence of 'broken email authors' for many years. I'd write a thorough email with explanations and questions and I'd get a reply answering the first question with a single "yes" and no more content.
Re: Email is not broken, we are.
#8Some people are using e-mail like IM and e-mail is built as an asynchronous communication system. In my opinion, that's where the friction happens.
The author of this post brings up a great point about defining expectations on reply times. I think it's healthy to create an auto-reply that states that you only check e-mail x number of times a day.
Re: Email is not broken, we are.
#9We should be adapting computers to work for humans, not adapting humans to work for computers.
I agree that there are tons of improvements to be made to effective e-mail use in organizations. But many of the behaviors we exhibit are completely natural to us and difficult to change. For example, we check our e-mail on what psychologists refer to as a variable interval reinforcement schedule; we know that at approximately some interval we get an e-mail that is helpful or enjoyable to us, and we waste our time checking for that e-mail.
It's hard to change the e-mail we receive on a global scale in one instant. It's quite a lot easier to develop tools that change how the e-mail we receive is displayed to us. One such concept was the Gmail priority inbox: what if you only got notifications for the e-mail that was important and could buffer up the rest for later?
A complete theory of how e-mail could work might easily involve a hybrid approach. Why aren't people suggesting solutions that could work instead of debating approaches? Does it have to be one way or the other?
Re: Email is not broken, we are.
#10We should be adapting computers to work for humans, not adapting humans to work for computers. I agree that there are tons of improvements to be made to effective e-mail use in organizations. But many of the behaviors we exhibit are completely natural to us and difficult to change. For example, we check our e-mail on what psychologists refer to as a variable interval reinforcement schedule ; we know that at approxima…
Great comment enginous. I want to look into variable interval reinforcement now, as I've been approaching this from more of a research-based angle.
The solutions should be hybrid, though I still believe that better behavior, reinforced by technology, is what will be the most effective. If you have your client reinforcing good checking schedules, that's a behavioral/technical win/win.