Communication Filters
In writing code, most languages, and particularly object-oriented ones, have built into them the concept of access modifiers, and implicit getters and setters. In brief, these are constructs used to restrict access to the internal state of one object by another object. Simply put, they either allow or limit messages between parts of your application. They regulate the communication.
This is interesting, because likewise among people, we have means to allow or disallow communication. Never has this been more evident than in the information age. Take the filters on Google Mail for instance. They are powerful! Not only can you block messages based on the domain they are originating from, you can also regulate them based on names, IP addresses, or even keywords in the subject or body. The same technology that looks in your email and proposes an appropriate google adsense ad can be used to make sure you’re never bothered by someone (at least not without a really deliberate attempt). On the lighter side the filters can also be used to help organize things, or draw extra attention to important information. These filters are OUR “access modifiers”. They come in many styles and shapes.
We who work on the web work in a communication medium, and it has been suggested that all the major advances in science and research of the last twenty years are directly attributable to advances in shared communication. Some say that mankind’s cumulative knowledge has more than doubled in the last fifteen years as a result of the world-wide web. I’m not sure how one would qualify that, but it does seem to follow that communications lie at the root of this technology acceleration.
So why are we so poor at communicating?
The fact of the matter is that our tools sometimes get in the way of effective communication. They are so primitive compared to our more established means of expression. Compared to a face-to-face conversation, an email is a horrible means of conveying anything. None of the subtleties of expression that are inherent in a physical conversation apply. We miss those things…so much so that we try to recreate them with conventions like emoticons. Now we can at least hint at our facial expression, tone of voice, manner. But even so, this is a pale shadow of the real thing. And it can be faked. How many of us were actually “ROFL” or “LMAO” when we indicated so? These are exaggerations, hyperbole intended to convey a hint of the true amusement through a channel inferior to actually being with the other party.
Video conferencing is becoming more popular as bandwidth increases, but even so there is something lacking that can not be described through electronic means. These channels are tools, to be sure, and indespensible in the modern day. They help us. But they are there to assist our physical communications, not replace them.
A little direct contact goes a long way in making our other tools more helpful. When a project is kicking off, or making a change in direction, nothing beats sitting down with the concerned parties where you can point, grunt, whistle and laugh. It only takes an hour, and when we depart we take those learned mannerisms with us, and project them into our electronic communications. Don’t think so? Remember the last time you finally met someone you knew only online? Did you find that you were surprised they did not match the persona your mind had built around them? We can’t help it. We’re story-tellers and we need to make characters of the players in our lives. A direct meeting helps to reshape our thinking, correcting all the “errors of attribution” we may have built up.
With our mind properly debugged, however, our tools take on better usage.
Take this thought for what it is, a simple observation. While I’m extolling the virtues of face-to-face communication, on a cold Canadian night I’d rather write an email than go outside…
-t.

