You want to set up a lunch meeting with your boss. With today's technology, you can e-mail him, text him, call him, instant message him, the list goes on and on. In our world of newfound connectivity, there is a myriad of ways to communicate with someone. But are so many options a good thing?
A text message is essentially a very short note, often one or two sentences. An e-mail is similar, but is usually longer. But we use two very different pieces of software, often even on two different devices to send these two similar types of communications. Why?
Several instant message clients offer voice chat, which is almost identical to calling. But to hold a voice chat with someone, you contact them via their instant messenger account, while to call someone, you use a telephone number. Again, why are two nearly identical types of communication so separated, not only by software but also by how you identify the person who you are communicating with?
As a final example, text messages and instant messages often look identical. But they are confined to two separate types of software. They are displayed differently and sent to different places via different networks, but they are essentially the same type of communication: they seek to convey the same type of data the same way.
So imagine we have a device that can manage all of these types of communications from one profile; really putting the "smart" in "phone". From one username (which is far more personal than a phone number), you can hold voice chats/telephone calls and send text. The inbox is continually refreshed, and you have the option of immediately showing replies to certain messages the moment they are received. This feature would be used for quick replies, as in instant messages and texts, while longer, more formal messages would go to the inbox first.
But these are all specifics. The crux of my idea is to unify the many ways we communicate in our twenty-first century world. The world is becoming more open and limits are being pushed and broken. And types of communication should adapt to this by likewise becoming more open, more efficient, and more free. We have invented many innovative and efficient ways to communicate; now we just need to unify these separate formats in a simple and functional way. We also need to communicate from a single, portable device.
What do you think? Do we need to overhaul how we communicate? And, if so, how should we do it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that forms of communications are evolving, not expanding. Nobody mails anymore. Nobody uses little birds anymore.
ReplyDeleteNow we rely on technology. Pluses and Minuses on the evolution scale, but we've really came far.
Right. Communication has evolved so much, in so many different ways, that it's become almost fragmented in a way. All the different methods of communication are divided, provided by different companies, different software, and different devices. This is a carry-over from the time when such communication really was new and existing companies simply hadn't developed it; the opportunity was seized by newer entrepreneurs.
ReplyDeleteBut now, these types of communication have matured, and its time once again to shift our focus to the communicator. We need to unify these different types of communication into one general format, with one device that can handle all our communication needs.
Is a blog a form of communication if no one reads it?
ReplyDeleteYes, I am communicating my ideas, just not to anyone in particular. ;)
ReplyDeleteWell, here's the definition:
ReplyDeleteto give to another; impart; transmit
to give to another... pretty sure that requires another person
Again, this reduces to a matter of definition. And you could argue that I'm communicating my ideas to the world, just that no one is listening. And additionally, I'm pretty sure moms are communicating to their children when they tell their children to put their jackets on, even if the children don't listen.
ReplyDeleteBut there are two people in your example:
ReplyDeleteadult and children
We are communicating. two people.
But must that other person be a definite person? If I tape a poster on a wall, surely I am communicating something, albeit not to any one person in particular. It may be that no one ends up reading my poster (because it is not noticeable enough, perhaps this is a reason my blog is neglected as well!), but I still believe that I'm communicating. Do you agree?
ReplyDelete