IM Usage & Awareness Services

CowboyRobot writes "Queue has two related articles on Instant Messaging. The first, written by two Sun Labs researchers, looks at the lack of standards in IM protocols, as well as the preception that the distracting nature of IM precludes it from being a more useful communications medium. Their solutions involve new 'Awareness Services' and they summarize three research prototypes: 'Awarenex', 'Rhythm Awareness', and 'Lilsys'. The second includes the results of an AT&T Labs study of IM use. Among the findings, "Despite the perception that IM is commonly used for social purposes in the workplace, we found that was rarely the case. Only 13 percent of the conversations we monitored included any personal topics whatsoever, and only 6.4 percent were exclusively personal.""

Comments

So what exactly is it good for in the office?

[iantri]

I know people said the same thing about e-mail, but what good does IM do in the office?

Furthermore, what about the security issues.. people are going to want to bring in their own copy of AIM/Y!/MSN Messenger to chat with friends.. doesn't this pose a security risk?

Re:So what exactly is it good for in the office?

[Anonymous Coward]

It allows people to talk to each other without turning away from their screens, increasing productivity!
Security-wise, you'd have IM only allowed internally (all external connection attempts blocked) on a work-supllied version of whatever you're using.

Re:So what exactly is it good for in the office?

[marc_gerges]

Been heavily involved in a huge IT project. It ran purely on IM.

IM is just invaluable when you deal with dozens or hundreds of people in a handful of time zones, many of them travelling around, often no phones around... there's nothing as useful as dropping a message and get near instant return on your question.

Re:So what exactly is it good for in the office?

[AchmedHabib]

I have co-workers who are located in different buildings. So IM is great here. You can see if people are at their desk. it's somewhere in between a phone call and a email. Like whats that perl script you've got running on server X, it's eating up all resources! I just talk to them on IM instead of calling. but I can't wait for them to answer the email. and when you DO need to call somone, I always check IM first to see if they are at their PC.

Re:So what exactly is it good for in the office?

[cerberusss]

You didn't read this part:

IM is just invaluable when you deal with dozens or hundreds of people in a handful of time zones

Right now I'm doing a project where part of the team is offshore in India. We couldn't really miss IM.

Re:So what exactly is it good for in the office?

[DarthTaco]

If you don't like it, don't use it... and you don't. So why complain to slashdot about it?

IM is more interactive than e-mail, but not as resource demanding as using a phone. I mean, I can talk to someone on a phone and work if I'm talking about what I'm working on. But if I'm talking to my wife, the keyboard stops.

Now with IM, I can go back and forth quite easily and smoothly. If I am chatting with my wife on IM, the keyboard doesn't have to stop. If I don't reply in a minute or two, people get the idea that I'm busy.

With e-mail, if I don't reply in a minute or two, that doesn't mean squat. The message might be delayed, I might have closed my e-mail client, or any number of things. People don't expect a prompt repsonse from an e-mail.

If you think IM is somehow distracting, how can you handle a telephone ring?

IM in the workplace

[Lord Bitman]

couldnt get anything done without it. Phones are much more distracting- you need to interrupt whatever you're doing for the duration of the conversation, whereas IM can be responded to whenever a free moment is had. It has a sense of urgency to it which Email does not- when you send an e-mail, you can't be sure that anyone will even respond.

As for turning around and talking to the person who's, after all, sitting right next to me anyway.. that can never lead to anything good.

Email is the only way to go

[ObviousGuy]

Since email is typically just stashed on a server somewhere, information and knowledge can accumulate for years before some nosy IT monkey decides to cap off everyone's mailbox limit.

IM, it seems to me, just doesn't have the permanency and longevity that email does.

Re:how was this legal?

[rking]

The people were probably aware that their conversations (on company time) were being recorded and potentially monitored. That might cause you to doubt the accuracy of the results as people knowing they were being monitored might act differently to normal but it seems as though the conversations were over the period of more than a year, not just collected for the purpose of the study so they probably were using it just the way anyone would in the workplace.

They're missing a crucial element: crypto.

[SexyKellyOsbourne]

Quite often, people exchange quite a bit of crucial information across the convenience of instant messaging: passwords, credit card numbers, personal information, and so on. Unfortunately, IM companies often forget that they leave their messaging completely unsecure, so anyone who can sniff the packets can steal all their information, especially after AOL screwed all PGP encrypted messages when trying to stop Trillian.

In fact, Echelon is infamous for sniffing a lot of traffic from AIM and ICQ, and anyone who thinks MSN is secure is crazy. Even though it might catch some Al-Qaeda terrorists, even they have human rights, including the right to privacy. After all, it might be you who are the terrorist one day, and you might get sent to Camp X-Ray for sending the wrong IM as a joke.