Is having everything available in "real time" where we really want to go?

[40hz]

Hannah Donovan (cellist and former lead designer for Last.fm) has penned a very interesting essay over at the A List Apart website entitled: Everything in its Right Pace.

Some time ago I realized, with mild panic, that our always-on, real-time communication channels weren't going away. As I was gulping down the day's feeds along with my morning coffee, it occurred to me that even if I wanted to, I couldn't really opt out. My refresh twitch is so habitual now it's almost hard to remember just how experimental things like the early days of Twitter felt.

Of course it once was, like all new things. The real-time web started as something we did because we could. Technological advancements like more efficient ways to retrieve large amounts of data, the cloud, and the little computers we now carry around in our pockets made it just a really sexy problem to solve. Successful experiments turned into trends, and those trends are now becoming unquestioned convention.

But is real time always the right choice? Do we even want everything we consume to move at this pace?

Her design experience with web companies gave her a very interesting insight regarding talk (in this case webtalk on Twitter) which lead her to ask an even more interesting question - is the pace of talk the speed that we want all our experiences to be conducted at:

We're just embarking on an instrumented era of logging all our personal data and making it available instantly, yet diminishing returns have already started to set in. We struggle not only to keep up with each other's data trails, but more importantly, to know which crumbs in those trails are worth picking up, as well as how to find them again later—like when you want to relax on the sofa after a hectic week and you know there must have been a bunch of cool things to listen to or watch that flew by on Twitter, but gosh, where are they now?
.
.
.
I have a hunch that when we invent new things, the first way we test our new technology is with talk. Our ability to communicate is simply one of the most basic use cases in the design problem of our lives. And not only is it essential and important and the rest of it, it's fun. It makes us laugh. Why wouldn't we?

This real-time barrage of voices works well for talk, because talk is fast, easy, effortless. We do it constantly. So what about things that take longer to make and consume: a song, a book, a film? Trying to squeeze these types of media up into the high-frequency end of the spectrum and expecting that we'll enjoy them whizzing around our heads at the same speed as our daily chatter might create a missed opportunity to explore a whole other end to the spectrum of pace for personal data!

Excellent article. Check the rest of it out here.

[Renegade]

It's funny how "can" and "should" often collide.

[IainB]

Interesting post. My take on it is that most/many of us seem to be subject to a self-generated compulsion in the use of and the immediacy of use of some technologies.

The question in the subject is:

Is having everything available in "real time" where we really want to go?

It seems to beg the question of whether we actually know where we want to go in the first place.
For any newly-introduced technology, the answer to the latter is arguably usually "No". Indeed, how could it be otherwise? How could we know what the user requirements might be? We often have absolutely no idea at all.

So, what often gets delivered to the user is a product/service technology/design that exhibits certain features that the designers dream up/think/guess/anticipate that the users might find helpful/useful/enjoyable/titillating. The only way to find out for sure is a trial marketing exercise. Let the thing out in ß, for example. Feedback from the users will be useful as a guide for necessary design/development changes, and will also help to identify any bugs in the thing too, because you probably didn't/couldn't really test it rigorously enough anyway.

This is the classic product development approach, and various IT suppliers, including, for example, IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook have taken that approach with their products/services at one time or another. The result is usually either a product/service that continues, or one that is summarily despatched at an early stage in its life-cycle.
At the end of the day, the product/service needs to be able to turn a profit. The Amazon example is one where the life-cycle was allowed to continue for a greatly extended period, even though it apparently made a loss meanwhile. Now it makes a profit and has a commanding market presence.
This can happen because entrepreneurs usually have the freedom to exercise invention, innovation and risk-taking in a Capitalist economy. This leads to many startups and failures, with a few prominent successes - rather like the Manhattan skyline. It arguably couldn't happen in a Socialist-Communist planned command-economy, because it would go against the dominant socio-political ideology and laws.

Psychologists tell us that research shows humans to be not naturally long-term thinkers but short-term thinkers, and suppose this to be an evolutionary survival characteristic. There is a characteristic in human nature that manifests itself as a desire/need for short-term rewards - IG (Instant Gratification).
IG has long been researched by psychologists and since the '30s has usually been incorporated unsubtly into a company's product/service marketing strategies.
Some of the new technologies that are introduced and that meet the need for IG for some users in some manner are seized on by those users, and they hammer the thing to bits, seeking max and repetitive IG. They do that because the psychological reward for the behaviour that leads a user to obtaining IG is so great that it leads to the behaviour necessarily being repeated as often as needed and as quickly as possible, so as to repeat the reward experience.
For example, texting via cellphones: how many times have you witnessed people so completely absorbed in a cellphone text "conversation" that they seem oblivious to what is around them? They are engrossed in a rewarding process.

The same can be largely true for things such as, for example, drug addiction and substance abuse (e.g., cigarette-smoking), and illicit marital affairs.
Why? Well, you cannot stop doing these things unless you force yourself to practice behaviours that avoid doing them. If you keep doing them, then you keep receiving the reward for IG (usually stimulation of the pleasure centers) that you crave/need so badly and that past experience has taught you that you can obtain again by a repetition.

The oblivious cellphone texter is in the same/similar condition. If they were not gaining some form of IG/pleasure feedback from the exercise, then they would discontinue the behaviour (assuming there was no external compulsion to continue).
Another aspect that could come into play is fear.
Fear of perceived potential loss is a very strong driver.
For example, the cellphone texter may feel apprehension/fear at the thought of missing or not replying to what might be an "important" message. So keep glued to that little screen or be sorry.

We seem to be generally susceptible to a lot of technology that can put us in this sort of condition - IG pleasure, or pleasure-fear - including, for example, compulsively watching TV, or playing computer games, or reading an engrossing book, or reading newspapers, or reading the Sunday supplement newspapers, or reading RSS feeds, or reading an encyclopaedia, or engaging in online chats or Facebook wall-posting conversations, or email inbox obsession, or watching Flickr photo-feeds, and so on.
These seemingly compulsive activities can often seem to us to be very important and high-priority activities - at the time - and we may even tend to rationalise them like mad when challenged.

Interestingly, as well as in psychology, there seems to be at least some basis in general IT theory to illustrate this characteristic human aspect towards the use of technology. You can find it in the 2nd stage (Contagion) of Nolan's rather dated model of Stages of Growth of IT.
[attachthumb=#]

[Target]

actually it's surprising how often these sorts of posts are popping up these days

many people 'in the business' seem to be realising how intrusive or demanding 'always on' is becoming and how little reward they're actually getting from it (or perhaps the cost doesn't justify the benefit), and they're actively choosing to either disconnect, or to severely curtail their online activities in favour of 'a normal life'...

[TaoPhoenix]

I think it is not so easy as that.  I believe this mood is more of a counterweight dialectic entry.

After all, for centuries many things were not available in any kind of expedient fashion except through the reporting news services. And except for a token letters to the editor section, readers couldn't hear each other in response to that news.

I have spent a chunk of years where "real life" meant "closed on Oct 1. Will open again in March. Bye!"  Wait for it... "Real Life" (TM) was Always Off. 

Where does one go for five months? The Always On Internet . 

So I suggest it's just the pendulum and all it has to do is swing a little back to the other side.

(Sent from a motel two hours away from my home computer at 4:45 AM from my phone. )

[IainB]

(Sent from a motel two hours away from my home computer at 4:45 AM from my phone. )

Hahaha. Very droll.   

And you could well be right about the "counterweight dialectic entry" - or at least in terms of the potential for that.
I recall in the early '90s, when I started to help admin to a locally-operated BBS, that the then perceptible explosion in email, IRC, and BBS chat forums looked like it was heralding completely new forms of easy and fast human communication/discourse.
(Of course, "fast" is relative. At the time, most connections were via dial-up modems, unless you - like me - were lucky enough to have a fast connection through your employer's international IT network. But where there had been nothing before, it seemed fast in the user's perception.)

But though it might well have been heralding completely new forms of easy and fast human communication, the general quality of the bulk of the communication - in terms of demonstrating the medium's enabling an evolutionary development of rational thinking, argument and discussion - seemed to be depressingly and abysmally poor. It still seems to be so, some 18 years later. You probably don't have to look far for some examples.

So, sadlement, I'm not really sure where all that potential for "counterweight dialectic entry" went.

[IainB]

@40hz: Sorry, though I noticed it, I forgot to mention this before:
I think the correct link you referred to in the OP should be Everything in its Right Pace.

That's "pace", not "place". The speaker was on about the pace of using technology/things, not location.

I have always liked the Radiohead song "Everything in its Right Place" and was about to link to it in my first comment, until I realised I had misread the actual title on the linked web page.

[TaoPhoenix]

Iain - it went to DC of course! 

However, compared to the stark nothing before, having to manage "too much poor quality communication" is such a relatively small downside which is why I hoped to convey that the pendulum only needs to swing 50 percent back for my idea of a happy medium.

I certainly don't have all the answers, but I think user side browser plugins might help. For example your user filter has "favorite operands" that you pick and choose for each site you visit.

For example on Slashdot "auto hide First Post and the next consecutive Anonymous Coward posts". However, no other site really has the First Post meme.

On YouTube it would be "Autohide all comments that are not spelled correctly"
.  Hehe for Nigerian emails it would be "Auto Spambox" all emails that mention more than $1,000! 

[40hz]

@40hz: Sorry, though I noticed it, I forgot to mention this before:
I think the correct link you referred to in the OP should be Everything in its Right Pace.

That's "pace", not "place". The speaker was on about the pace of using technology/things, not location.

I have always liked the Radiohead song "Everything in its Right Place" and was about to link to it in my first comment, until I realised I had misread the actual title on the linked web page.

????

Corrected.

Thank you.

------------------------------------

Addendum: Is it just me, or shouldn't it also more correctly be 'at' rather than "in" its right pace?

Hmm..I think I might substitute 'proper' for "right" while I was at it. And remove that faux possessive.

Let's see...Everything at a proper pace? Certainly more correct. But somehow, it loses something...

[cranioscopical]

Everything at a proper pace[/i]? Certainly more correct. But somehow, it loses something...

You fast-walking devil!

[40hz]

Everything at a proper pace[/i]? Certainly more correct. But somehow, it loses something...

You fast-walking devil!

You cannot claim to have "arrived" at DoCo until a post of yours gets a Chris christening!

Hey Chris! Nice to see you're still around. It's been too much quiet lately.

[mouser]

This thread seems related to my post on the pleasures of a time-shifted life.

[superboyac]

I haven't read the whole article yet, but from what you quoted and skimming IainB's post (which I also have to queue up for reading later, as usual ) I think I normally prefer things in real time, whenever possible.  Why not?

The only argument against it is for those cases where the fun of it is in the waiting...like waiting for the next episode of your favorite show to come on.  I break it down like this:

Entertainment:
For entertainment related things, being real time or not is not an issue.  Because there's a story being told, and the creator/artist needs to figure out the best way to tell the story.  So the feature of real-time doesn't help anything here.  This is an artistic issue.

Truth:
For facts and truth, etc., real time is always ideal for me.  Any delay just gives people more of a chance to lie about something.  And we lie far too much as is.  The truth is simple: it is what it is.  Don't make it more than it is, don't make it less.  If Lebron scores a layup, the truth is in what you saw in real time...how he scored it, what led up to it, etc.  Any more than this is lies and manipulation.  Even saying "That was AWESOME!!" is already manipulating it because it probably wasn't that awesome.  And the hater will say "It SUCKED!" which is also not true.  Only the real-time experience was the truth.

So for the sake of truth, realtime is always preferred for me.  i don't want any lies, any coercion, any manipulation.  Just show me the real muthafuckin thing.

Even lately as I've been on a quantum physics kick...I don't want the interpretations.  I don't want the fancy 3d models of balls inside atoms shooting out and stuff, or the animations.  I want the RAW data.  What are the scientists looking at that proves or disproves things?  Stuff like what's below:

because those artist recreations have really prevented me from thinking about it clearly.

The problem with real-time is that to be able to deal with the real good, realtime, truthy stuff you need to constantly keep up with your personal education.  And I'm noticing that this is what people don't like.  We reach a point in our lives where we don't have the time/energy/money/family/etc. to keep up with everything that we want to.  Then all the realtime stuff becomes too much very quickly...it's like data overload at some point.  So that's when we become like "I don't even want to know" or we just want to see the cliffs notes version of something.  is that good?  I don't know.  I personally don't like it, but it's also clearly a good way to be able to live in a community in a pleasant way.  I imagine if we were all craving and processing realtime data, we'd eventually just turn into chaos and violence.  If everyone was super impatient and also had the energy to resolve that impatience...oh boy, that would be pretty crazy.

[TaoPhoenix]

In a way I'd say that realtime is indeed a double edged choice. I am starting to wind down my heavy internet usage because I mostly got what I came for. (User-Generated eduction in many topics). By now I have a decent understanding of many important issues, both computer and constitutional, and roughly with some 5,000 posts to my "web brand" I have just about reached a plateau.

That's when it's about time to switch to the summaries or skimming, watching for what's really a surprise, vs what's "just more data".

[40hz]

Smashing Magazine recently posted an article with some good tips on how to keep up to date without spending more time than necessary to do so. Some good ideas if you haven't given your online reading habits too much thought.

The Art Of Staying Up To Date
By Vasilis van Gemert
August 9th, 2012
   
An important part of our job is staying up to date. Technologies don’t really change that fast — HTML5 and CSS3 take a long time to be specified and implemented. But the ideas surrounding these technologies and the things we can do with them are constantly evolving, and hundreds of blog posts and articles are published every day. There’s no way you can read all of those but you’ll still have to keep up to date. Here are some tips on doing that while still having some time left to work.
.
.
.

Full article here.

Note: If you've been doing the "web thing" for a while you're probably already familiar with some, or all of Vasilis' suggestions. But it might still be worth a glance as either a refresher or for something you missed.

[barney]

Note: If you've been doing the "web thing" for a while you're probably already familiar with some, or all of Vasilis' suggestions. But it might still be worth a glance as either a refresher or for something you missed.

Indeed, it was  .

Thanks, 40hz.  You've provided me with, finally, a valid reason to use cloud services without major security concerns  .

[IainB]

Is having everything available in "real time" where we really want to go?

To my mind there is a definitive "Yes" to this, where our direction is to transcend what we can currently do. There is some mindful, creative and developmental work that can be done in real time via FREE Real-time online collaborative editing tools. Some of them are superb.
I have just posted about them here: Real-time online collaborative editing tools + FREE

You arguably couldn't have done this sort of thing easily - collaborated and communicated so interactively amongst disparate groups of people, and in real time - prior to the advent of the Internet.

[app103]

I had an interesting discussion with my daughter tonight. She is at the age where she is giving serious thought to finding someone, settling down, and starting a family.

She is having some anxiety over the idea of becoming a 21st century parent, and it is mostly being driven by what the internet has become and how socially integrated it is into the lives of today's kids.

Gone are the days when a kid that was being bullied at school could come home, shut the door, and be safe from the bullies. Now we have cyberbullying, which brings it right into what should be the safety of your own home.

By the time she has kids and they get to be school aged, it will be considered normal for 5-7 year olds to have smart phones on them at all times, always connected to everyone else in the world, in real-time. She is concerned about this, and concerned also about setting up her kids to be social outcasts by saying no. She doesn't want to raise kids that are that connected almost from birth, but at the same time she also doesn't want her kids to be the only ones in town without smart phones and end up getting picked on because of it.

She knows that being a parent isn't easy in any age, but thinks that my generation and earlier had it much easier, because we really didn't have to worry about this kind of stuff....there wasn't an internet, or wasn't much of one, when we were raising our kids. She remembers the drama on Live Journal when she was a teen, the crap in the AOL chatrooms, the stuff her and her cousin was exposed to online, and she really doesn't want that for her kids, and sees things getting worse and more dangerous the more that everything becomes available in real-time and the more kids are so deeply connected at younger and younger ages.

It's enough to give her second thoughts about the whole idea of being a parent.

[kyrathaba]

IainB, thanks for the links in your article.

[IainB]

IainB, thanks for the links in your article.

You are welcome. Thanks.
I think that sort of thing (the activity of collaborative editing) is an example of where technology offers a potential for social evolution, but I am unsure as to how many people are able to actually accept the offer, get on with it and start to evolve.
It would probably not be correct to call this sort of thing "mindless" activity by any means. You could differentiate it to a lot of the activity referred to in the linked article in the opening post - which could most decidedly arguably/accurately be described as "mindless".

[40hz]

One side effect I've noticed with "real time" is that it has brought about far less considered comments and writing.

There was a time when you'd very carefully choose your words and marshal your arguments on a given topic. Now, with the "need for speed" to either be first out the door - or (more commonly) being pressured to respond to something more quickly than desired - you see more and more pointless exchanges.

What I see is a gradual but very widespread and noticeable shift away from dialog. Instead of dialog there's now the trend of making a statement - and then digging in to defend it against all comers. Small wonder petty bickering and squabbling has replaced mature debate and discussion in most places.

To paraphrase an old joke: You want my answer, and you want it right now? Well... did you want it "right" - or did you just want it "now."

[superboyac]

One side effect I've noticed with "real time" is that it has brought about far less considered comments and writing.

There was a time when you'd very carefully choose your words and marshal your arguments on a given topic. Now, with the "need for speed" to either be first out the door - or (more commonly) being pressured to respond to something more quickly than desired - you see more and more pointless exchanges.

What I see is a gradual but very widespread and noticeable shift away from dialog. Instead of dialog there's now the trend of making a statement - and then digging in to defend it against all comers. Small wonder petty bickering and squabbling has replaced mature debate and discussion in most places.

To paraphrase an old joke: You want my answer, and you want it right now? Well... did you want it "right" - or did you just want it "now."

Hmm...very interesting point.  I must say, I have totally adapted to the whole "just say what you want to say" thing.  I have lost my patience with most dialogue.  But it feels like a chicken-egg thing.  I don't like the dialogue because of the pettiness and over-sensitivity, but my impatience is what is causing it sort of!  Ugh.  Very ambiguous.  I mean, on one hand, I appreciate the getting-shit-done type of attitude, but I also love to be able to have interesting discussions with people whoa re comfortable having a wide range of emotions.  I like it when people get angry and chaotic, and unpredictable, etc.  that's good stuff, that's a real discussion!  But the content needs to be rich.  I don't like it when all the emotion is due to people just not being able to disagree with each other.

I was watching the Milton Friedman Free to Choose debates this weekend, loved it!  I mean, it can get pretty stuffy at times, but overall very entertaining and educational, like a good conversation should be.  It is damn stuffy though, almost comically so.  I mean, look at the guy holding his knee:

Oh I love the struggle of eccentrically intelligent people trying to mask their cockiness with stereotypical professional poses.

My only personal problem with debates like this is that its difficult for me to be able to tell when someone is stating the truth well, or just trying to be a contrarian.  They're too smart for me to always tell the difference.  I love one, hate the other...very fine line between them.

[IainB]

...look at the guy holding his knee...

I'm not familiar with that. Is it a body language signal of superiority, like steepling the fingers is supposed to be?

[superboyac]

...look at the guy holding his knee...

I'm not familiar with that. Is it a body language signal of superiority, like steepling the fingers is supposed to be?

It's more of a professional way of appearing casual.  To be honest, they're in a difficult situation from a "how to look cool" standpoint.  First, they are NOT cool by any means, and they know that.  So that's a problem already.  Next, they are talking some high intellectual stuff...also not cool.  It's being filmed, they're not actors, they feel awkward I'm sure.  And then there's the whole debate atmosphere thing...you know, keep your cool, process thoughts, form your logic.

I don't blame the guy, i just think it's funny.  If it were me, instead of sitting down, I'd be pacing Sherlock Holmes style.  I think better that way, and I can make more natural arm gestures.  If I wanted to appear superior, I'd point at people...they all do that anyway.  I hate people pointing at me when they talk.  How could it not be an accusatory gesture?

[IainB]

@superboyac: Sorry. I'm not sure I can make sense of all that.
And I thought pointing wasn't "accusatory", but a dominance signal.