Reply to Twitter messages
This is a reply to messages from @TobyParkins between 0813 and 0815UTC on 14 March 2013.
(This is also a communications experiment which I can perhaps try to explain elsewhere. Suffice to say, for now, that this is like a slightly longer Twitter message.)
The conversation so far is below.
In this world of increasingly diverse communication, our conversations are becoming scattered across channels.
A few channels in a few minutes
Yesterday, my ex-partner sent me a text (SMS) message which approximated to: “Will you please reply to my email about …?”.
A few minutes later, she sent me another: “Actually, it might have been a voicemail“.
So I telephoned her and said: “Actually, it was a text message!”
Funny, or not?
On one level, we can dismiss this as being part of our funny old world.
But as the number of channels increases, it is not so funny when an important conversation breaks down because messages are being sent and expected on multiple disparate channels.
Where are you looking?
When innovations appear, it can be hard to see their potential benefits … especially if you are looking in the wrong place!
That seems to be the case in this superbly simple story, told to me by Aren Grimshaw when we met up last week.
Continue reading “Simply social”
Recently, Mark Jennings posed an important question:
Much of this subject is, I believe, quite well understood by people involved in communication theory and, particularly, in organizational communication.
There are experts on this subject: the person from whom I have learnt most of the following is Alan Nelson, when he explained the essentials of organizational communication, during an interview. Continue reading “Communicating context and meaning”
The Google+ service is potentially interesting, but is it just Wave all over again?
As I begin to use it, it feels like facebook, which is quite limited.
And it’s nowhere near as useful as Twitter. Continue reading “Social++”