Re: 3.12 feature: polari

[Allan Day <allanpday gmail com>]

David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org> wrote:
> > The usage patterns for IRC are different from regular IM (passive
> > presence in many "always on" channels vs. active participation in a
> > smaller number of temporally specific conversations). You can't
> > support both with the same UI (I know, I've tried to design such a
> > thing).
>
> I'm not so sure they're really different.
>
> I have a passive presence on my corporate IM system, always indicating
> my availability (available/busy/away/etc.). And it's very likely to be
> 'always on' these days, since I can also receive voice calls from the
> PSTN when I'm connected to it.
>
> And there are obviously the small number of temporally specific
> conversations that you mention.
>
> But all that *also* describes my IRC usage. Yeah, it's always on, and it
> can indicate my availability, and I'll have a number of short-lived
> conversations.
>
> To me, there isn't a clear distinction between one and the other.

IRC:
 * You tend to join channels, not conversations.
 * Individuals tend to be on a high number of channels simultaneously.
 * Channels often have a high number of people in them.
 * Your interest in a channel tends remain the same over time.
 * Most people tend to read and not write.
 * Participants are often strangers.

IM
 * Conversation based rather than channel based.
 * You know the people you talk to.
 * The number of conversations you are involved in at any one time
tends to be fairly low.
 * Conversations tend to be temporally specific.
 * The number of participants in a conversation tends to be low.
 * All the participants in a conversation usually speak.

The distinction seems pretty clear to me.

> There's a broad *spectrum* of communication, and even 'group chat' can
> end up including "meetings", with audio conferencing, desktop sharing
> and all the other stuff that can bring. But then, so can 1:1 messaging.
...

Well sure, the world is a messy place. That goes for pretty much
anything; but you still have to make a call and decide what it is that
you want to build. Saying "it's complicated, so we'll build all the
complexity into a single tool" is not a recipe for success.

Allan