[HN Gopher] We don't show typing status ___________________________________________________________________ We don't show typing status Author : commondream Score : 79 points Date : 2022-06-01 19:55 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.withcardinal.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.withcardinal.com) | jaimehrubiks wrote: | MS Teams has the worst ever "typing status" implementation I've | ever seen. In certain cases it shows you're typing by just having | the conversation opened, which is extremely frustrating. Maybe | just because the cursor is in the text box. It should only show | typing if I have at least 1 letter... | gabereiser wrote: | And a timeout of at most 3 seconds in case you pause typing. | fleddr wrote: | Typing status aside, there's nothing worse than a semi-realtime | conversation. | | A true realtime conversation, rapid chat replies, is fine and | sometimes needed when something important is happening. | | A true async conversation that is slow and may take days, is also | fine. | | A semi-realtime conversation though is the horror. A "realtime" | conversation where for some reason the other party takes 2 | minutes to type any response, every single message. The 2 minutes | is enough of a wait to get enraged but too short to go do | something else. | | My solution: call the person unannounced. Just say: "I figured | it'd be quicker to talk directly". This forces them to drop | whatever the hell else they were doing and get to the damn point. | | Intrusive? No. Not if you let me wait a full hour for what should | be a 5 minute interaction. | sugarpile wrote: | Sounds like a great way to get those two minutes to turn into | two hours from here on out and all your calls "accidentally | missed." | jacquesm wrote: | Some people are not that fast in either thinking or typing or | are careful in their responses, or struggle with the language, | some people are not comfortable talking on the phone. | | Some are both... | | I know at least one such person and I would not miss them for | the world. | franga2000 wrote: | I agree that it's frustrating, but your "solution" is extremely | self-centered. I might not be getting much out of the | conversation or even want to be a part of it in the forst | place. In that case, if responding slowly works better for me, | you forcing me to give you my attention adds a huge cost to my | side of the equation. | | To use an example: if you're texting me to help you fix your | printer while I'm working, I might give you a small bit of my | attention out of "generosity" (not the right term but close | enough). I'm not getting anything out of this, but I'm not | losing much either. But if you want to completely interrupt my | flow and force me to give you all or none of my attention, fuck | your printer. I have better things to do. | [deleted] | wolverine876 wrote: | You can always say, 'let me call you after work ...'. | [deleted] | idiotsecant wrote: | a 2 minute delay is asynchronous. You should be devoting 2% of | your attention to keeping up the thread, and put the rest on | other tasks, like everyone else does. What you're describing - | turning a casual, asynchronous conversation into a demand for | full attention and relying on the open 'channel' of the chat to | somewhat force consent is an annoying move and would get you | put solidly into the 'respond in a few hours when I'm done with | everything else' pile. | wolverine876 wrote: | > You should be devoting 2% of your attention to keeping up | the thread, and put the rest on other tasks, like everyone | else does. | | As I understand, and IME, that's not how attention works. | Switching has a large negative effect on focus for me, and | when I'm interacting with others who try to do it, it sure | seems like it doesn't work for them. I focus on one thing at | a time. | TrevorJ wrote: | As an aside, I'd love a chat app that sends each character as it | is typed, simply for the pure chaos of it. | karaterobot wrote: | This is how it was for a lot of "SysOp chat" systems in the BBS | days. Sometimes the two parties wren't even in separate | sections of the chat, they were effectively just having a | discussion in a shared text document. | reidjs wrote: | See google docs | sidibe wrote: | Google Wave | BHSPitMonkey wrote: | Google Docs | woodruffw wrote: | Try talk[1] some time -- it's a live connection to the other | user's TTY, so they see everything you type, typos and all. You | can't even type simultaneously, since the messages would | intermingle; you need to wait for the other person to signal | that they're finished. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_(software) | actionfromafar wrote: | I always preferred ytalk, then your own window to type in. | (The screen was split in an upper and lower half and you had | one or the other.) | wruza wrote: | I remember doing that with modem connections in dos, you could | chat with a friend while up/downloading (or with a bbs sysop). | There was even a sequence that beeped on the other side to draw | peer's attention, but I've never used it. With friends we had a | rule to not interrupt the one who writes until a newline, | because characters would mix as in "Hi, how aHrie you". | c22 wrote: | ICQ had this mode too. | Wowfunhappy wrote: | I _loved_ this in Google Wave! It felt closer to an IRL | conversation, because I could start thinking about my response | while the other person was typing. | | I can understand why it made people uncomfortable--there is a | certain intimacy to it. But, a bit of vulnerability is good for | conversation. | gjvc wrote: | Google Wave ftw | news_to_me wrote: | https://brutal.chat/ | loloquwowndueo wrote: | zulip allows configuring both your "typing" indicator and online | status indication. | | Twist takes it one step further and has no online indicator at | all; twist is a somewhat different paradigm though. | nickdothutton wrote: | I've never heard of Cardinal but I liked the fact you could | actually see what people were typing, character by character, in | ytalk. Sped up a lot of conversations. | Aloha wrote: | I came here to say this, I would love a service like this. | geoffjentry wrote: | I found it often the opposite with ytalk. Yes, some people | would just plow through it and make the best of things. And one | could already be thinking about a response in real time. | | But other people would find the need to correct every typo. And | it was painful as crap watching someone with a 5 WPM typing | speed and an affinity for typos to get through what they were | trying to say. And eventually you move past thinking about a | response in real time to screaming "JUST STOP TYPING | ALREADY!!!!" | dilap wrote: | that's interesting. | | i've never used chat that does this, but i have seen a lot of | claims it was a misfeature in google wave back in the day. | | but still, i could see it being ok, more like verbal | conversation. | | i defnly agree w/ the linked article that the middle ground of | "<soandso> is typing" is a misfeature. the only possible | response to that information is to sit there waiting, which is | annoying/pointless. | | (but nothing beats verbal comms, still. downside of course is | that it is "extremely synchronous" and does not archive well.) | dbbk wrote: | This sounds, and looks, just the same as Twist | joshstrange wrote: | On the flip side I greatly prefer the indicator. It lets me know | if I should wait for a response or move on to other things. When | I message someone I wait a few seconds to see if they start | typing and if they do I just wait and if not I can start focusing | on something different. | layer8 wrote: | Often enough people start typing but then decide to not respond | after all (or not right away), so you end up waiting for | nothing. | cgriswald wrote: | Or they're fat-fingered like me and accidentally click a | character while trying to close the message app. | walrus01 wrote: | i'll take it one further and say that having a messenger app that | shows "online" or "active" status is not something I like. In | addition to the problems with having an app that sends an | indicator to the other party that somebody is actively typing. | | I like how Signal just shows that the person exists as a contact. | Whether they're awake or not, or active, or idle is opaque to me | and I'm totally fine with that. | | One of the _reasons_ for text based chat /messenger apps, going | all the way back to the earliest days of IRC, is the benefit in | having asynchronous communications. If I absolutely need an | immediate answer from someone or a realtime 1:1 conversation on | something urgent I'll call them on the phone instead. | | In things like facebook messenger I bet that 99% of users never | dig into the settings to turn OFF the "show your activity status | to other people" option. | | For something like a work place communication tools such as Slack | I can understand the purpose of setting yourself active or idle | manually to indicate whether you're available for messages, or in | a different time zone, or whatever. That's a different use case. | jrockway wrote: | Yeah, I would never add presence to a chat app. I hate, hate, | hate it. | | I started using Discord a few years ago and accumulated friends | with whom I regularly chat. If I leave Discord off, they're | like "oh you haven't been online in such a long time, I thought | you were dead". Or if I chat while I have the thing set to idle | they're like "oh lying about your idle status because I'm | annoying you" and things like that. | | It is such a chore to maintain people's expectations. I wish | they never added this feature to the app, because my friends | will guilt me into turning it back on if I turn it off. | | Slack is similarly bad. Like if someone wants to step out of | work to go for a walk in the middle of the day, I don't need to | know about it. It's none of my business. They can reply to my | messages when they have time. | Mandatum wrote: | The solution here is to login, set yourself to away/invisible | and never make it active. | | The activity sign is useful for most people. | sroussey wrote: | I never had a phone number for anyone I chatted with on IRC. | Same with ICQ. | hbn wrote: | I don't even like read receipts for casual communication apps. | I feel like they only cause stress. I don't want people to know | if I'm read something because I may have read it but be too | busy to respond and need to come back to it later, but I don't | want the person thinking I'm ignoring them. And on the other | side of things, I don't want to stress myself out repeatedly | checking if someone read my message. | cgriswald wrote: | > One of the reasons for text based chat/messenger apps, going | all the way back to the earliest days of IRC, is the benefit in | having asynchronous communications. If I absolutely need an | immediate answer from someone or a realtime 1:1 conversation on | something urgent I'll call them on the phone instead. | | This is lost on, as far as I can tell, at least 50% of the | people I regularly text, despite me explicitly pointing this | out to them. | | In the years before email and texting and even ubiquitous | answering machines, when phone calls were all you had, there | were people who _could not_ let the phone ring without picking | it up. I see people respond this way to text messages now. They | not only have to pick up the phone to read the message | immediately, but they have to engage with the conversation | immediately as well. (And not just for work messages.) | | I don't know how people live that way... | walrus01 wrote: | > I don't know how people live that way... | | Based on what I've observed, in a state of constant low level | anxiety interconnected with certain weird societal | expectations of activity/behavior on popular social media | (facebook/instagram/twitter/snapchat/tiktok/etc) | nine_k wrote: | I see situations when broadcasting my availability to some of | my contacts is important. | | I see cases when doing so is counterproductive or | uncomfortable. | | An obvious solution, of course, is to make it an option. | Default hidden with per-contact overrides, or the other way | around. | | Of course, XMPP has a better part of it implemented, but not | all of it, and without a sleek UI. When Jabber still was | popular enough, I could subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) | status change events, per contact, using Pidgin. Worked pretty | well. | zwkrt wrote: | As I understand it, all of these features are not features that | people really like, they are features that 'drive engagement' | in that horrible UX A/B testing sort of way. The basic tenet is | that if you can increase the anxiety of the user they will | spend more time checking the app. If I am messaging someone and | see some blinking dots, I will stay in the app until they | message back. Otherwise I might use the messaging app as an | asynchronous tool and not waste all of my time in it. | mattbee wrote: | > I like how Signal just shows that the person exists as a | contact. Whether they're awake or not, or active, or idle is | opaque to me and I'm totally fine with that. | | Signal does show whether the recipient is typing, if you have | the chat open. | ytjohn wrote: | I remember IRC a bit differently - mostly with it being tied to | dialup. When we were on irc, we were on. We might be "afk" for | a bit, but generally would be back soon. If you saw someone's | nick on irc, it was very likely that they were online and | active. Even with ICQ and AOL, it was pretty apparent if people | were online or not. If they weren't online, or you didn't need | a quick response you sent them an email. | | As DSL and broadband became more popular, chat moved to being | more asynchronous. Chat clients started synchronizing message | history with the server to make it avaialble on all your | devices. It was easier to leave your presence online, even when | you were unreachable. | | IRC itself still retains a lot of that realtime chat, mainly | because of its transient nature. Yes - the channel might be | populated with people that aren't actually there, but the | conversation is much more real time. Unless you have a bouncer | or web client, the chat history starts when you join the | channel and ends when you leave. There's no threading (ok, | maybe some of the web-based clients will do that), so even if | you see a conversation from a few hours ago, you can't | participate in it. At best you can start a new conversation | referencing the old one. Not everyone in the channel will have | that history. | | I consider that lack of permanence a feature. When Google Talk | came out, I loved the fact that all my chat history was saved | and it was available everywhere. Now that all chat clients have | that, I find myself preferring the more ephemeral/transient | chats. | walrus01 wrote: | from the POV of people using irc from dialup it was indeed | very much like that - but also from those who were dialing up | to unix systems, or using them locally over a network such as | at a university, the machine running the irc client | maintained a persistent network connection so it was possible | to run a persistent client (or eggdrop bot) without | disconnecting/reconnecting and re-entering channels. | | after about the year 2000 or so it was also really common to | see people with shell accounts various places using gnu | screen to maintain a persistent irc client session. | easton wrote: | It's interesting, because I remember Steve or somebody saying | this was a selling point of iMessage. "No busy indicator, no | offline state, just send your message and they'll get it on all | of their devices". Then at the last WWDC they go up there and | show how cool it is that iMessage will now tell your contacts | if you are in Do Not Disturb (and allow them to override it). | You can opt out, of course, but I guess people really like the | busy indicator? | gjvc wrote: | > "No busy indicator, no offline state, just send your | message and they'll get it on all of their devices". | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wfG8ngFvPk | powersnail wrote: | > I guess people really like the busy indicator? | | I think people sometimes just really don't want others to | think that they are ghosting them, so a busy indicator serves | that purpose: "I'm working right now, not purposefully | ignoring you, please be patient, or override it if it's | urgent." | | I don't personally use it, but I understand the sentiment. | bee_rider wrote: | Huh. I've always assumed chat apps were for synchronous | communication. If they are for asynchronous, then why do they | exist? Email already solves asynchronous communication pretty | well, and it is even decentralized. | tshaddox wrote: | From a technical standpoint I don't see how there's much of a | difference, given that devices are almost always connected to | the Internet and almost all chat, messaging, and email | services people use have a third party server that persists a | message regardless of the recipient's "presence" at the time | the message is sent. These services _have_ converged, apart | from a few idiosyncrasies and perhaps some waning differences | in the social expectations of a particular service. | wolverine876 wrote: | > In most discussion apps that show your typing status, you feel | pressure to wait for your peers to finish typing and sending a | message before typing one yourself. | | > wait for those above them to speak up first | | Do others think of these as universal rules? Common? Situational? | Non-existent? | | Reading the OP, I fear I don't know the rules at all. I've | participated in online forums in every medium and for a long | time, and never thought about these. Maybe I've been disruptive | or rude without realizing it. :( | atto wrote: | If you're stuck using Slack and don't like their behavior of | sharing typing status, I made a browser extension years ago that | blocks that: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/slack- | hide-typing/... | kazinator wrote: | Have you ever used the BSD ntalk program? You can see every | keystroke of the other party, in the opposite split of the | screen. | | It's awesome: people complete each other's sentences, or stop | typing when the other person is saying the same obvious thing. | | You can say " , ... what's that word again ...?" and the other | person will help, then you can backspace over that and continue | your sentence. | | I've not ntalked in probably over 25 years. Sheesh! | grokblah wrote: | I miss chatting with that! It was so interactive. I wonder if | it could be translated to communication between more than two | parties. It sure would be interesting to see a prototype of | something like that. | kazinator wrote: | That's Ytalk; also ancient, and uses the same protocol. | | https://linux.die.net/man/1/ytalk | | I seem to recall seeing people use that around the | undergraduate CS lab. | | I should have mentioned that what was new (to me) when I | was introduced to talk/ntalk was the concurrency of the | split screen: both parties just clacking away at the same | time | | As a user of dial-up BBSes, I had often chatted 1:1 with | sysops, nor as a sysop with users. The BBS sysop chat | implementations were different/simpler; both parties were | typing into the same space. This required manners: taking | turns, letting the other people finish their sentence. | That's the same like a Windows user being remotely assisted | today: you and the remote admin can both move the mouse | cursor or type into the same edit boxes. | karolzlot wrote: | I can't find pricing of Cardinal. Do they have free tier? | avgcorrection wrote: | > Inclusive By Default | | > We all tend to operate within explicit and implicit hierarchies | within our teams. Explicitly we know we have a manager we should | defer to, and that there are executives and other roles that are | important to the team. Implicitly we know there are people with | more experience in particular topics or simply more social | capital within the team. If you see someone above you in either | of those hierarchies, you're more likely to pause and listen, and | potentially to decide it's not worth the effort to bring your | ideas forward. | | > Our goal by removing typing indicators is to help teams build | environments where anyone can think through an idea and bring it | forward without having to wait for those above them to speak up | first. We want everyone to feel included in discussions when they | have an important idea to bring to the table. | | We make a chat app for teams with a clear chain of command (I | don't know just going by context). By removing this one super- | modern chat app quirk we will be able to say that we are | "inclusive by default", even though the whole context that your | team operates in contradicts our stated aim. | | I don't know I just think that the hierarchy of the group trumps | such trivialities. | [deleted] | kibwen wrote: | Typing status is one of the worst UX misfeatures ever devised, | and any app that includes them automatically comes across as | amateurish, as though the project manager was just ticking boxes | rather than actually bothering to consider the experience of | using the app. I applaud any attempt to put more nails in this | coffin. | seydor wrote: | Too much marketing fluff around a minor resource optimization | HappyTypist wrote: | Things I wish messaging apps had: | | 1. Forward a message to someone else. Sometimes you're not the | best person to answer, but a colleague is. Forwarding should be | easy and feature minimal friction. | | 2. Auto-deleting of messages in a DM after X _messages_ (e.g. | only the last 100 messages are retained as scrollback). It forces | you to document knowledge in more suitable forms; than having it | lost in DM silos. Furthermore, it keeps conversations with your | regular contacts more candid and natural; but retains the | information and context for infrequent contacts. | | 3. No typing status (thanks Cardinal!) | commondream wrote: | > Forward a message to someone else. Sometimes you're not the | best person to answer, but a colleague is. Forwarding should be | easy and feature minimal friction. | | Cardinal does this! You just share with someone else and you | can expand or change the discussion as needed. | mynameishere wrote: | Sometimes I will type a few random characters as an ack, and to | let the person know that I am going to respond. | izzydata wrote: | Perhaps it should be more obvious to everyone if the particular | form of communication you are using is meant to be synchronous or | asynchronous. Talking on the phone is clearly synchronous and | sending emails is clearly asynchronous. However everything else | seems to have gotten confusing. People have started moving what | was traditionally forum based long term asynchronous | communication to Discord. | mikkergp wrote: | Yeah, this distinction is also melded with a persistent/live | distinction. I know in reddit/hn/forum I can go back at the end | of the day and read everything I missed, so it's 'obviously' | asynchronous. Mentally, I don't feel the same way about slack, | because it's hard to continue a conversation that happened | earlier.. I guess threads could make this easier. | jrockway wrote: | Reddit actually has typing indicators now. "2 people are | typing" it says when you make a top level comment. | | (They removed a bunch of features from "Old Reddit" that I | liked, so I gave in and use "New Reddit" now. Sigh.) | indymike wrote: | Slack threads are not fun. | KerrAvon wrote: | Non-disableable typing indicators is one of the few things I very | much dislike about Slack. I don't want people to see whether I'm | typing, and this means I have to use an external editor. (The big | other thing is @here/@channel notifications by default being on. | No fucking thanks -- I turn that shit off on almost every | channel.) | sys_64738 wrote: | This ^ - being forced to use an external editor to type you | response then copy/paste defeats the purpose. Plus Slack is | such a POS anyway. I also hate the distraction of the crap | notifications. Humans are not interrupt-driven creatures. | Firmwarrior wrote: | so long as we're dogpiling Slack, let me add in my complaint: | You can't mute Slackbot, and Slackbot sends a LOT of dumb and | pointless messages about channel management. At work they're | constantly adding thousands of people to "watch party" or | other random channels, then archiving those channels later | on, and I keep getting notifications from Slackbot about | them. | | I was trying to keep Slack notifications unmuted in case my | manager needs something from me, but I was just getting too | much useless crap from Slackbot. Finally I had to mute it | completely and tell him to call my cell if anything comes up | wruza wrote: | What's wrong with someone seeing that you are typing? | | Seriously. | yieldcrv wrote: | I think its interesting that this article isn't about _your | opinion_ on typing status, its about the user story they are | building that messenger for. Yet most of the comments are about | an opinion on typing status in general. So... what do people | think about the cardinal messenger and their exclusion of typing | status? | gog wrote: | I guess not enough people are using Cardinal for a meaningful | discussion on that specifically. | samtimalsina wrote: | Never heard of Cardinal either, and I like that they don't show | typing status. If I see someone is typing in a Slack channel, or | typing to me privately, it takes all my focus away until it is | complete. Interesting though that they don't show their pricing | on the website. Why's that? | barkingcat wrote: | that means a person can DOS you by typing and erasing text but | never sending you a message? | samtimalsina wrote: | People do that? | layer8 wrote: | Happens often enough that people start responding but then | realize they don't actually have anything useful to say | right now ("never mind"). | das_keyboard wrote: | Just typing something and then not sending a message puts me | out of order for about 5 minutes while I'm waiting if there | is a message coming. And then another 10 minutes while I'm | speculating what he could have wanted from me. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-01 23:00 UTC)