Recently, a comment on a blog post I wrote about Twitter: a witness projection program provided the impetus for me to search through your archives to find this piece. The comment included the observation – about Twitter – that “on the positive side, it’s also the easiest means of directly connecting to the whole world, every 6.5+ billion of us for free” … and that reference to ease and hyperconnectivity reminded me [yet again] of this post.

Your observation that “We want communication to cost something because that cost signals that we value the other person, that we value them enough to spare our time and attention” is at the core of what bothers me about the way that some people use Twitter: as an efficient / inexpensive / frictionless way of “communicating” to many others. I know you were not explicitly referencing Twitter in your post, but I think that many of your insights apply. Many people may value many of these signals (tweets), but personally speaking, I find that any sufficiently large number of signals is indistinguishable from noise, and generally prefer more costly forms of communication such as F2F discussions, email, other 1:1 (or few:few) online exchanges … including comments on blog posts.

Thanks for posting a blog that keeps on giving .

Now everyone has their own laptops and phones in the SF cafes. This tech is so much more efficient, it’s enough to make you throw it out the window. Now, folks rarely meet new local friends through the tech. In fact, you can argue that today’s tech drowns out more opportunities to meet new friends face to face.

PS- What was SF Net, and why do I consider it effective? Check out the “SF Net Nostalgia” tribe group, still alive with people pining for SF Net and keeping alive the community that grew around it:
http://sfnet.tribe.net/?current=tribeallposts&set=y#tabs

I think that people purposely create inefficiencies without calling it as such all the time. We make it easier to subscribe than unsubscribe. Easier to read than post. Easier to do what we want than not.

In game design we create inefficiencies to allow players to not only take the desired path, but also to force them to cooperate. Games and social applications are social engineering as much as enabling technology. The decisions to were we build in efficiencies directly influences the flavor and success of our social applications.

That said, I do believe that in the Web 2.0 world we need to be a bit more cognizant of not only making technology efficient, but also making sure that people have opportunity and contextually interesting reasons to interact.

-Marty

Anyway, in Australia, broadband infrastructure in general provides me with those breathers.

my masters thesis questioned the value of efficiency in technological device design. i explore devices like the “drift table” (gaver, et al.) and designed my own device to examine how efficient tech can negatively regulate and influence social interactions. i was seeking to create a genre of device design that would allow the individual to explore the role of Efficiency within the context of daily life.

i’ve got a bunch of my papers/projects online if you’re curious to read a bit more about them:

http://ace.uci.edu/~gelliott/papers.html

&

http://ace.uci.edu/~gelliott/projects.html

The cubicle.

The goal, of course, is to distance the cube monkey from distraction. The reality is that it becomes so isolating the person festers in depression and ends up being less productive.

Brief full site downtime for upgrades or maintenance creates a forced and potentially healthy “vacation” and other interaction opportunities. First, site members must either complete or otherwise save their interaction for later. Next, connected people usually interact outside their normal paths – contacting each other to communicate about the downtime and when they themselves will be on next. During the outage, they’re left to either fill their time in other ways or find another outlet. While this may drive some people to competitors’ sites/services, it often generates that rush of “OMG what am I going to do without [site name] for 2 whole hours!?!” Finally, they’re able to offer each other support and reconnect after an upgrade, communicating on how to use a new tool or reporting technical issues.

Personally speaking, planned downtime can serve as a reminder of a site’s importance to me, and this usually coincides with me donating a few dollars / content support.

To my way of thinking, interruption isn’t necessarily an inefficiency but it can have unintentional benefits.

Brief full site downtime for upgrades or maintenance creates a forced and potentially healthy “vacation” and other interaction opportunities. First, site members must either complete or otherwise save their interaction for later. Next, connected people usually interact outside their normal paths – contacting each other to communicate about the downtime and when they themselves will be on next. During the outage, they’re left to either fill their time in other ways or find another outlet. While this may drive some people to competitors’ sites/services, it often generates that rush of “OMG what am I going to do without [site name] for 2 whole hours!?!” Finally, they’re able to offer each other support and reconnect after an upgrade, communicating on how to use a new tool or reporting technical issues.

Personally speaking, planned downtime can serve as a reminder of a site’s importance to me, and this usually coincides with me donating a few dollars / content support.

To my way of thinking, interruption isn’t necessarily an inefficiency but it can have unintentional benefits.