I have found quite the opposite. Most of his gripes would be easily fixed by matching his usage of the software to his issues/requirements for them, and about half of it either barely sensical whining or a desire to fundamentally change 90% of the human population (which is not going to happen).
The goal of a post on etiquette, IS to change the behavior of others.
As much as i dislike Arrington, he's absolutely correct on this. And as the comment above notes, this is just as applicable for communication on IRC as it is for Skype (well save for the video bit).
As Arrington's posts are applicable to basically every IM protocol, i'm confused as to how you think Arrington's (and my) "gripes would be easily fixed by matching [...] usage [...] to [the] issues/requirements for them".
This is basically a spam filtering problem, and you're blaming the guy getting spammed.
> This is basically a spam filtering problem, and you're blaming the guy getting spammed.
Only the gripe displayed in the video (and #2 on his list) is a spam issue, and it's trivially fixed by disabling auditory alerts, which are not only generally useless but systematically annoying.
Let's check the other ones:
> It’s not a conversation until both sides are engaged.
Maybe it's not a conversation at all, and just an RFI or whatever. Furthermore, if you're not available set your status to one that matches instead of marking yourself as available at all time.
You can even default your status to "Not Available" or "Do Not Disturb". That way, people won't assume you're available... which is what you're saying by using the "Available" status.
Waiting for a SYN/ACK on IMs is entirely useless and highly counter-productive, you can ACK when you reply. In fact it's very annoying because I'm out taking a shit and instead of asking whatever you need and going on with your life as I come back and reply, you're either waiting in front of your screen for my ACK, or you're gone doing something else and by the time you come back I've ACKed and then I'm gone again, resetting the whole process.
If you want to converse, use VOIP.
> Don’t just jump right into a phone call. It’s polite to send a chat message first saying “online? time for a quick Skype call?” It’s annoying when the Skype phone starts ringing randomly.
it doesn't ring randomly, it rings when somebody calls, because they have something to tell you in person. Don't want to answer the call? Then don't
> And all I wanted was a little bit of quiet.
See again, use your status already, if you're not available say you aren't.
> Video calls are not a God given right. Just because you want to do video right now doesn’t mean I want to.
Settings > Video > Show that I have video to > no one.
> Don’t assume confidentiality.
That has nothing to etiquette, it only has to do with not being retarded.
Why not "if you want to converse, go visit them"? Most of the time when I want to converse, I want to use text rather than deal with all the baggage of audio and trying to manage social context -- context which is mostly absent in text.
If you could hit a button and be at their doorstep, the vast majority of reasons to chat rather than going to visit them would still apply, though, right? Going to visit someone has a major overhead, socially. A quarter hour of conversation, at the least, before you can politely get to the subject of the visit, etc. Phone conversations have some of the same costs to a lesser degree: it's quite rude not to devote your full attention to the call (or appear to do so), and there might well still be a few minutes of overhead. With IM, you can almost just start talking. It cuts through all the extra junk around actually having the interesting part of the conversation with a person, but you can still have an actual conversation (even while you both do other things as the other person types), which is important for discussing things at length.
Basically, I would say that calling and texting have very different social costs, but calling and visiting are much closer that way, and that this is why it's almost always better to text than call, even for extended conversations.
I agree with most of the points, but the first is a little iffy. I'd rather have someone just skype me their question than chase each other around all day doing the "yt?" ... 15 min later ... "yes" ... 20 min later ... "sorry, I'm back now. you still there?" ... dance.
Questions have context. Explaining them is easier if someone's there interactively prodding for missing context you failed to give. "Can I ask you a question?" == "Got a moment to chat interactively?"
Agree, but willingness to answer also has context. I'm almost always willing to answer simple questions such as "Where can I find XYZ?" I have to be in proper mental state to answer more complex questions such as "Can we discuss the large and complex proposal I sent via email yesterday?"
This is all amplified when you have virtual teams. Those more complex conversations are more manageable when you are face to face. People can express how busy they are and how focused they are. IM doesn't have that luxury.
"Can I ask you a question?", in my personal experience, is usually a trap. If it was an easy question, the other person would have just asked it. Therefore, it's probably going to be a complex question that will take time and focus.
True, but 99% of the time I'd prefer someone just ask me the question and provide the context they think I'll need to answer it. This makes it much easier to come back to my desk after being away for hours and be able to help you out immediately, rather than wait for you to be available, then wait for you to type the question, etc.
If more context is needed then it will have to be asked for - but this is no different than the first situation ("Can I ask you a question?"). Simply asking the question will optimize the response and conversation time in most scenarios, and will not slow it down in any.
I find it interesting to compare how I use Skype with how I use a regular phone. With skype, I always IM the person first (usually just saying "skype?") to see if they're available for a discussion. With regular phones, I'm used to just calling.
The skype approach seems far more preferable. My guess is that as SMS/IM/VOIP becomes more ubiquitous the standard etiquette will be to ask before calling.
> The skype approach seems far more preferable. My guess is that as SMS/IM/VOIP becomes more ubiquitous the standard etiquette will be to ask before calling.
That makes sense for services where voice is a peripheral system (MSN, iChat, ...) but I fail to see what sense it makes for Skype, which is first and foremost a VOIP system, with instant messaging tacked on.
If you don't want VOIP as a primary communication device, here's an idea: don't use a VOIP service as you primary communication network. Use some other IM, and when somebody requests a voice communication and you allow for it, you start the call (from a skype account set as invisible)
The segmentation between voice, sms, im, and video is obnoxious. Some sort of open XMPP is ideal. I don't want a different contact name for every medium. (I may want separate contact info for other purposes, but not for something that's a technical distinction like video vs. voice.)
Once of my biggest pet peeves with Skype is the way presence notification permissions are handled. The default way to make contact with somebody seems to be "add them to my contact list" which then initiates a message exchange of "Can I see when you are online". The problem with this is that and once granted, presence notification permissions live on the other person's computer and _cannot be revoked_. Removing them from your contact list does not prevent them seeing your online status and blocking them outright is the only solution. This is overkill however since I may wish to be able to receive calls/chats from them still but don't want to broadcast my online presence to them.
While I can of course change my status to invisible, this is a global setting and affects all my contacts. I now live in a permanent state of lurking on Skype, because so many business contacts have initiated contact with the "can I see you online" and would have taken offense if I simply said no.
In short, I would love to see better presence notification options in Skype including the ability to revoke permissions and to partition people into groups and assign a corresponding status to each group.
I will never understand why people will want to use alert sounds in the first place. I'm happy I still retain most of my functional hearing after enabling alert sounds in Messenger inadvertently while wearing headphones.
I've never seen anyone abuse the enter button like he describes. On the other hand, if they did, I'd block them before they finished their second message.
For me, it's because I quite frequently have 4-5 hour conversations, and trying out both writing it all in paragraphs and pressing enter repeatedly resulted in more engaged conversations, as the other participant isn't staring at a screen waiting while I write it. It's better I think if all you are doing is talking to them, worse if you are both multitasking.
I have no problem writing in paragraphs if someone wanted me to though.
Watch the video in the article. It is truly ridiculous what the person he is chatting with does, and I can completely understand why he would block them.
"It’s annoying when the Skype phone starts ringing randomly"
You mean like, uh, when someone phones you normally? my counter view is that I hate it when people send me a chat saying "hey are you free for a phone call". Am I signed into Skype? Yes. That means I am probably able to take your call. Sheesh :)
I think the difference is he is an average user who leaves skype on all the time, whereas you (and I like to do this too) only use it when you have time to use it.
Just because Skype replicates most of the functionality of a phone, it's not required that we import the bad parts from the phone.
I guess the difference is really whether you consider Skype an IM that's also a phone, or a phone that has IM. You're in the last camp, Arrington (and myself, for that matter) is in the first.
I'm not entirely in disagreement - but I dislike the idea of it becoming ettiquette. Me pressing call is the bit where I check if you're available.
Part of the problem is that it's not always simple to silence a Skype call (like you could a phone) if you're busy. But then you also have the option, unlike a phone, of marking yourself as busy.
That last bit is, for me, the better innovation :)
(BTW constantly asking permission is a common grip of mine; "can I ask a question?" is one of the most annoying things in the world :))
I see what he is trying to get across - but ''the vast majority of the time'' you're going to be free. Complaining that people don't automatically IM you before starting a call is silly...
He hits the nail on the head on the rest of the article though.