My main thought: what about all of the contextual clues and nonverbal cues that are missed with IM? Perhaps this contributes to the confusion viz. when to communicate. It is hard to intuit through pixels. So, then, we are left with a blunt directness that you describe. Unsatisfying indeed!

Anyone heard of Jabber? It’s a free, open source IM protocol. It doesn’t have a specific program associated with it but there are a ton of programs that support it, like Gaim and Adium. It’s far from perfect, but it’s a little different than AIM, and using it has helped me realize many reasons why AIM is fundamentally flawed.

AIM is an old, old system as far as software goes. I agree that IM itself is in its adolescence; our parents could never raise us and tell us how properly to use it as they did with the phone. But from the viewpoint of software development, AOL’s market dominance and its large “internet beginner” user base has made it incredibly slow about developing and changing. I think it’s time to rethink everything.

Online/Offline: I believe this concept only exists because people didn’t have persistent internet connections at the time instant messaging began. Jabber (and Yahoo actually) let you message people any time, even when they’re offline. The server stores the message until the recipeint comes back online again. That sounds more like email! Why not? The online/offline status having anything to do with the ability to message people is an awful design that everyone has just gotten used to, and now, have trouble thinking beyond. Offline messaging is only called “offline messaging” because of this history. It need not even have a special name, but AIM/ICQ/MSN users don’t stop to think about this limitation and it has to be explained to them. Once all IM systems offer this, no one will ever think about it again. Maybe you only want to get messages when you’re online for some reason? Make it an option.

I believe Away messages are AOL’s desperate way of getting around the awful Online/Offline limitation, in situations where people stay Online a long time: people no longer know whether the people “on their list” want to talk.

I am as annoyed as many of you that Away messages, that is, auto-replies, are the only official way of telling someone your status on AIM. Indeed, there’s no way to indicate what you’re doing when you’re available, which would be really helpful for people to gauge whether they want to interrupt.

I believe Idle status is an equally shady way of getting around the misuse of Away messages.

I believe “invisibility” only exists, again, because of the Online/Offline problem. Sometimes people want to talk in privacy: they don’t want people to know their status. Well, darn it, they should always have privacy by default! If they’re looking* for someone to talk to, that should be an option. But like stated by the author here, people on AIM will assume that you are looking for conversation if you’re online. The problem is deeply entrenched in us.

Now if you could send to anyone, even people online, you would need to expand your “Buddy List” to show offline buddies, too, because they’re no less relevant anymore. But many of us don’t have room for that on their screen! You guessed it: I don’t like the idea of a Buddy List, either. I like the initial discussion on this page, of the theoretical use of IM as a communication tool when needed. If you need to talk to someone, you should be able to quickly look them up and go, almost like dialing a phone number. I am certain that it’s possible to have some really easy interfaces for that. So having more of a “phone book” than a “buddy list” would be much better. I think one of the main reasons people get sucked into IM, “wasting all their time”, is just the fact that they’re constantly reminding themselves of who they think* their friends are with this big wonderful list.

I have lots of other problems with AIM but none of them have to do with presence so I’ll leave them out of here.

I still use AIM (with Gaim) because most of my friends are on it. But I don’t really enjoy it, and I’ll fight it to the end.

Again, it’s time to rethink everything.

Not to be too picky, but actually that represents some small fraction of a bit of
information. The uncertainty of the piece of information (“family is OK”) is very
small (high expectation that they in fact are OK), so the status channel removes
some, but very little uncertainty (i.e. low, but nonzero, information content).

Whatever.

Flows of Moments>>Shared Presence “Last night I was reading danah boyd’s post about how some people log on to IM to mark presence, while others only log on when they want to chat, and how the cultural difference causes tension,…

Anywho — nice post.

I’m one of those “always onr’s” I have incorporated my work IM with my personal IM, so I can keep in touch with family members and friends while at work. Yes at times I’m busy helping customers and can’t respond to an IM, however, like stated by Barb, if I put my status as away, I’ll miss things by co-workers, and I don’t want that because that’s how a lot of work related questions get answered.

It’s just gotten to the point where people on my contact list have just grown accustom to if I don’t answer then I’m busy, and will respond when can.

Now Text messaging, I really like that! It’s very convenient. My job is one where I’m on the phone all day with customers, I don’t have time to answer my phone. My friends all message me on my phone. It works out great because I don’t feel obligated to respond right away, and I’m not interrupted by my phone ringing or vibrating all the time. That and it helps me releave stress when I get done talking with not so bright customers!

Also, the analogy to phone is totally warranted, beyond the obvious association that they’re both methods of communication – VoIP phones are even starting to graft on IM-like features like our good friend the presence indicator.

@coturnix – re: “why bother with IM – what the hell is it for?”

I carry out the vast majority of my business communication over IM. Which brings up another element of my particular digital divide, and perhaps others’? I tend to think of IM primarily as a work tool, and my colleagues who do as well tend to be other on’rs and *get it.* My friends who see IM primarily as a play/socialize/hang out tool tend to be the ones who log on, immediately ping me and want to demand attention. They don’t *get* that I’m working because to them, we’re both present in a social space and they see it as hang time. I don’t want to put up an away message, though, because I want to be available to colleagues. Even if IM tools were granular enough to handle multiple status messages to different subsets of contacts – would I really want to spend all that overhead time changing my statuses and delegating who needed to see what? I doubt it.

re: “When did any one of you send a personal letter by snail-mail the last time?”
Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the “analog versus digital” and never the twain shall meet myth. I mailed a letter two days ago. I have an iPod(s), and I have vinyl. Computers and moleskines – we really can all just get along.

Plus, I can now give my clients my cell phone number and simply ignore their phone calls. After they get a few SMSes from me, they figure out the appropriate level of access that they deserve, and things work out quite nicely. I can put out their fires at 4am and look like a hero yet still ignore silly questions when I don’t want to be bothered on a Tuesday afternoon.

I find that I don’t really need to signal presence (or to have it signalled to me) if conversation isn’t the goal. If I text somebody and don’t get a response within five minutes, I assume that they’re “not present.” I sorta like the fact that I can signal different levels of presence to different people.