Over at the Lablit fora there is a discussion on the language of creativity. The conversation, um, evolved somewhat and got to talking about online vs down the pub conversation.
Someone said
I just feel that an online discussion is hard work compared to the real thing
and this was followed a bit later by
I was actually wondering if anyone makes use of tools like IRC for scientific discussions, given that it’s a much more conversational way of communicating than writing in a forum or commenting on a post. It’s also more forgiving, in that ‘pub conversation’ way.
Which reminds me of a comment I made about ‘chat’, rather than forum or weblog posts. And I thought — although iChat is bloody good (multi-person video conferencing! Integration with Keynote!), and Gmail chat not bad, — both require separate accounts (AOL/.Mac or Gmail). The advanced features of iChat/AIM (for Linux/Windows) require a separate client. Either are preferable to the somewhat arcane nature of IRC, which I dabbled with once in the ‘90s but never really warmed to.
What would be really nice, at least for the NN crowd, would be a web client-based chat room. This kind of technology exists already, so it should be relatively straightforward to implement (hint, hint).
I agree this would be useful, and I’m sure there are other things that could be added (e.g. a wiki, so we can keep track of what’s currently known about unicycling girrafes). I wonder if Matt should convene a focus group in London in August. As long as he serves beer1, it won’t be too difficult to get a bunch of ideas for how we would like NN to develop. Then Matt can explain why it’s not technically possible.
1 Bitter, please. One reason to visit the UK is to be able to drink something other than a pissy lager.
Hey, I’m still waiting for my promised hyphenated tags.
My heart sinks at the prospect of a NN chat room. I already spend too much time here; if all the key things were happening in real time instead of in snatched moments on my own terms, I’m not sure I could keep up.
All things are possible, Bob. We want to build EVERYTHING you want, but resources dictate that we can only get about one big feature into each monthly release. Chat and wikis are both things we’ve considered. It’d be great to have a chat about what you’d all like to see next on NN - perhaps on the Friday night over a beer?
Jenny – your hyphenated tags are in the next release, in just over two weeks. See, we do listen.
Matt: big smooch.
From me, as well. Mwah
Great idea this NN chat, but as you mentioned there are already loads of alternatives out there. Would be nice something that could integrate with google talk (or a similar system) so that we can keep using the same clients (iChat works fine with it) and also keep the conversations saved (is so useful to be able to retrive a particular piece of a technical conversation when I speak with collaborators overseas…).
er … what’s IRC? Please define abbreviations at first use, Dr Grant.
Are you going to reject his manuscript now?
“Internet relay chat”.
I was accidentally forced into “chatting” when signed up to gmail in its early days. Now I have the feature turned off. I find it very distracting when I am writing something or emailing someone to have this CIT (definition: chat icon thing) constantly popping up when someone wants to “chat”, especially when more than one person at a time does it, or someone does it while they are “chatting” to lots of other people I got so confused by it that I ended up proofreading a 350-page book in Word typescript but that is another story.
So now, I have all such features (eg the “ping” when you get a new email) turned off.
Of course the kind of chat you all mean might not be like this, but if it is like Google chat (or the MSN equivalent, which I’ve seen others use), then it isn’t for me.
I share Jennifer’s and Maxine’s view that online chatting is likely to be a distraction too far. True, the exchanges in comments don’t have the immediacy of a bar-room chat but the key difference between these modes of communication is the difference between talking and typing. The advantage of typing comments is that it slows things down and allows for more reflective contributions. If the price of that is conversations that take place over several days, then so be it I say. Would the chatting format not encourage spates of one-line remarks? That said, why not give it a go and see what people make of it? Trial and error anyone?
Don’t you mean ‘controlled experiment’?
No – let’s leave it to variation and natural selection to decide the matter…! Seems to have worked out OK so far.
Procedural note: if Richard gets five more comments on this thread will it count as his first century seeing as how this is an addendum to a post that’s got 82 comments?
har har! Is it lonely at the top, Jenny?
(damn, I wish we could edit comments)
I was thinking, re chat rooms and whatnot, it would be great to have scheduled events online, in a dedicated conference ‘room’. A similar one could be left open all the time for people to look into if it’s, like, 7 on a Sunday night and there’s nothing on TV.
For what it is worth, I don’t like chatting either. It is not quick enough to be like a conversation, and it doesn’t allow the kind of reflection that an email or comment does.
it would be great to have scheduled events online, in a dedicated conference ‘room’. etc.
Again, in my cold water mode, I am not sure this would work (for me, anyway)—we now have network snapshot which allows you to see at a glance the conversations you have started or in which you are participating. So in that 7 pm Sunday slot, you can check there, no? The chances of a particular group of people all being online for a scheduled chat on a particular topic is relatively small, particularly given time zones, whereas the “snapshot” method allows “conversation-focused” interaction with whoever is up at the time—which is the same thing in a way.
However, I add my usual caveats that I have never tried online chat except accidentally once, and also that I’m so ancient that I might be dinosaurically wedded to outmoded forms of interactive online conversations.
This is a global network – what if 50 people show up? My screen isn’t that big.
(p.s. she scores…)
well yes – all we need now is for Matt to merge the two posts…
Hello
in terms of real time chatting, I have a few questions.
How often are you in front of a computer vs in the lab?
Do you have a laptop in the lab and wireless internet?
You all seem to be quite good at using the blog posts as a near realtime chat service. Would you use the forums for this kind of chat if there was one which didn’t require membership?
From the conversations we have had we think that the time for people to be in front of one another in realtime is less than you’d think. In terms of realtime chat I’ve been using twitter and find that a good balance between IM and a web based chat service. Though I’ll admit it is not for everyone.
We are looking at which other services we could / should integrate with. Capturing and recording the conversations is something that becomes hard. If you are looking for a realtime chat service with archives, then I can recommend Campfire
For me chatting wouldn’t be a high priority, some of the comments here are almost real-time. I would be more interested in a Nature Network API. This would allow all kinds of interesting mashups.
Agreed Martin, an API is something we are working on. What would you want to make with it. If you can give me specifics that would be great or drop me an email thanks
Gavin, would it make sense for Nature Network to implement the Open Social API? A Google Maps mashup with the comments of a blog post or a forum discussion would be fun.
This is brilliant. We’re designing NN to how we want it to be. Crazy ideas are welcome, get tested and modified. You’re all wonderful.
Open Social is on the list too, once we get the forums/groups sorted out and move forward with the locations based stuff. Using the new (ish) open technologies like OAuth and Open Social are important to us.