Push and push to talk
Some more random thoughts on how our minds have been poisoned by 100+ years of Bell (or was it Meuccian?) telephony.
The signalling system in the analogue era was very simple. I want to talk, your phone rings, you pick up. We then enter a manual signalling exchange. "Hello, this is Mary." Confirms I got through to the right number and callee. "Hi Mary, this is Kevin calling. Is this a good time for a chat about next week's meeting?". Identity, availability.
Now imagine a system where we could press the green "call" button on our mobiles either once or twice. Pressing once would just request a call with the person. They would then have a queue of "people who want to talk to you", and those present/online would appear in that queue in time order. I could even, if calling from a PC or other rich UI, suggest times to call back. My phone would have a special ring for returned calls.
Alternatively, press the green button twice and make a normal interruptive "ring now!" call.
I wonder how we would use the telephony system differently under these circumstances? What would be the etiquette? How would people "subvert" the system for their own uses, layering on alternative semantics by playing games with the system? (We do this today: "Call me when you get to the station and I'll come pick you up -- let it ring twice, I won't answer.")
Would we have eliminated the queue in an IVR system for a human operator? The problem then is that you've already connected the call and gone through some menus before we get to the point of understanding this is just a request to talk to someone, and that the actual conversation has been postponed for a few minutes. So it's no panacea to voicemail tag or hold musak.
It's interesting how few (i.e. none) of the IM or other private voice application players have meddled with the basic flow and semantics of telephony. Indeed, earlier versions of Skype had an old-fashioned telephone ring sound to invoke the Pavlovian pick-up response.
The telephony system is as much a network of compatible user expectations and behaviours as it is a bunch of switches and gatways. VoIP makes it easier to change the technology and features, but the humans are the bottleneck in the system. So for new features to be adopted, they have to not disrupt existing usage patterns too much. I'm a bit too young to remember, but I'm sure the introduction of answering machines and caller ID caused no shortage of social angst at the time.
Why do we not use conference calls for two-person conversations? Why does everyone use conference calling for three person calls, and not 3-way calling (with an outbound interrupt)? What's making us use a different pattern?
Martin queues his thoughts with Telepocalypse.
Comments
I remember well the general reaction to answering machines upon their introduction. It went like this: how dare [the called party] expect me to talk to a machine?
And it was awkward learning to talk to a machine. And humiliating if there was someone in the room with you while you were "leaving a message" for the called party. It was, like, "Dude, you got fobbed off to a machine."
Today, of course, we're somewhat resentful when we *can't* leave a message on the machine ("What, don't they have a machine?") How times change.
I bought my first answering machine in 1991, and I remember precisely why: to ensure I would not miss information left by callers on apartments I wanted to rent.
Posted by: Mark Petrovic | October 26, 2006 09:03 AM