wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Software dev, San Francisco, Sacramento, Calistoga, Tokyo, email, video conf., Skype, iChat, ooVoo

I think that IMing and Instant messeging have about the same etiquette- It's instantaneous and understood the receiver has the option to respond at the receivers convenience

to compare this to the world of computers, an architecture can have a CPU or processor either "poll" a list of jobs that have to be processed or it can be interrupted by devices when they want to get something processed.

Maybe you can compare this to checking your email ( polling for more work ) or Instant Messaging ( getting interrupted ).

Of course this is oversimplified, but computer architectures today use something in between, so there's a 'middle' device that collects interrupts and then the CPU checks that middle device for important jobs.

again oversimplified, but anyway.

i'm the same way as the sons of the lady who just called..

i only reply to texts. i don't even pick up my phone calls

IM is a slow motion telephone conversation, more fluid and informal than email, but not as demanding of moment-to-moment attention. I use it more for work than socialization.

Incidentally I have logs of almost every IM conversation I have ever had.

We are required to have instant messaging. Downside is poorly crafted emails that look like instant message. Fine internally or with friends/fam, but reprehensible when you see TTYL to clients.

I work from home and use it to converse with my coworkers remotely, so its kind of like office conversation.

I have 2 pet peeves:
1) it should be used for very brief text/single lines of communication...save the long paragraphs for email
2) Instant means instant...don't get on IM, send one, and then respond 10 minutes later....
arrgh!

Unless everyone's using the same messaging service, email is the only way to go.

Setting up and switching between AIM, Yahoo, MSN, Google Talk, and IRC clients (not to mention the annoyance of getting distracted by random SMSs ) makes the instantaneity not worth it.

At my firm, an investment bank, I have colleagues over the globe. IM is a firm-provided tool for communicating w/ each other. I also use IM for net meeting in conference calls to share desktops as well.

Re company policies disallowing IM, is PC security a factor?

At one point, IM was the new e-mail.
Now, text messaging is the new IM (and e-mail).

I work as an editor for a internet publishing company and we use AIM at our work place to communicate between co-workers. I personally find it more efficient than email or calling someone to ask a question. I think instant messages are more effective because you can expect an answer instantly whereas an email can be accidentally overlooked.

I find that I can't get away from IM! There's a client built into Gmail, another built into my Blackberry-- it's in-escapable.

IM is simply TOO instant. When I get an email message, I've got an hour or two to respond. When I get an IM, I feel like I've got to answer NOW NOW NOW or else people start thinking that I'm ignoring them, which leads to more long term social problems with those individuals. I disable it everywhere I can.

I think IM is a great mental break from work, and far less distracting than listening to the radio and participating in discussions online!