The article has well over 500 likes, which suggests that this is not only a well-written column, but also a strongly agreeable sentiment. Slack has some finer grained controls for notifications and channel management, but its defaults and tendency to "tell you everything" can make a user feel overwhelmed. I only receive notifications for five channels out of 30 that I've joined, which is a small subset compared to the 500 available channels to listen in on one of the teams I have signed on (I have eight teams; four of which I check actively). It is nontrivial to bounce back and forth between teams and find out what you missed in a day when several hundred messages are posted. It is downright annoying to do the same on a mobile device.
Slack could easily improve its default behaviors to curb some of these issues, but there are larger factors around a person's working environment and their company culture that may exacerbate even the smallest of annoyances. The "tendencies" at IBM are still oriented around using e-mail as a primary communication vehicle, and the idea of using Slack as a replacement is ridiculous to some. Aside from the legal/security issues in using a cloud hosted chat server, most IBM-ers see e-mail as a necessary part of their workflow. There are some factions that have decided to never turn their e-mail client on and use slack exclusively, but I've noticed that these same groups tend to be on an island and, as a result, have a cultural silo. Overall, there is still a need to find a balance between real-time communication and asynchronous correspondence, and it seems Slack can be used for either purpose which perpetuates the problem. Like Samuel, I'm big fan of the service and its UI design is fantastic, but design is about how it works within context, and there is still some more thought needed in this space.
The question isn’t quality of design; you are stunningly well-designed in supporting the human tendencies you’re set up to support. I’m just not sure that those tendencies are ones I really want more of in my life right now. It seems that everyone’s social habits around using you are lagging pretty far behind your marvelous technical advancements.
Plug your existing headphones into this Bluetooth-connected puck and voilà: Bluetooth headphones (I’m not looking for a Nobel Prize here). The device is charged via Lightning and automatically powers on when headphones are plugged in (battery life can be tracked on your iPhone à la the iPhone 6S Smart Battery Case). Use the rotatable clip to fix it to your jeans or jacket or simply drop it down your pocket.I had always thought that Apple would push Bluetooth headphones with their devices, but including an elegantly designed pair would be expensive. It is also not likely Apple would ship this puck with headsets either. Therefore, it would seem future iPhones will ship without any headsets at all, and instead be an optional, bluetooth accessory. This is a very Apple-y move for several reasons: it makes the box smaller, it decreases the number of items to include, and it forces people to buy what Apple deems as extra. As Sean points out, it is only a matter of time before the 3.5mm hole goes away (and only a little while longer before no holes exist at all). This solution seems as good of a band-aid as any.
Say hello to a brand new Twitter. The company is planning to introduce an algorithmic timeline as soon as next week, BuzzFeed News has learned.
The timeline will reorder tweets based on what Twitter’s algorithm thinks people most want to see, a departure from the current feed’s reverse chronological order.My timeline is full of tweets that I'd love to mute on the subject, but I also follow some die-hard, early-adopters of the service as well. This move would clearly not be for us -- it sets the stage for Twitter being a broadcasting platform, except that the "news" is suggested for you, based on the preferences of who you follow. As a platform that depends on advertisements, the only way to monetize is to get more eyeballs to look at promoted content. Twitter will continue to find ways to get content that publishers pay to promote in front of you, even if that means breaking what Twitter meant to you. People unfairly compare Twitter and Facebook even though they act differently on the platforms. With Facebook, you have an imprint of your identity into the service. Your thoughts aren't as ephemeral, and they represent more of your actual person. On Twitter, people tend to use brevity and wit to succinctly portray a public persona. This persona changes with context, and carries from platform to platform. Instead, Twitter is more like watching TV: you tune in, see what people are huddled around, and then you tune out. Some people are popular enough to contribute, but they still don't get an incentive to publish. Twitter's sustainability will depend on persuading the bottom 90% to publish, interact, and engage more. An algorithmic feed can surface content that promotes this engagement.