- A manifesto, maybe misguided? identifies a problem with which I certainly agree: "E-mail takes too long to respond to, resulting in continuous inbox overflow for those who receive a lot of it." However, their suggestion to make email more usable is a bit Draconian: all emails, "regardless of recipient or subject, will be three sentences or less." My first thought, being an engineer, is that many of my emails require a thoroughness that can't be accomplished in three sentences; oversimplifying things or omitting relevant details would be disastrous. And on the personal front, there are many people with whom I have "long-form" correspondence: multiple-paragraph life updates sent every month or two, to which a three-sentence response would be downright insulting! Then there are emails with details about travel, events, instructions, announcements, updates... Hmm. The manifesto itself invokes text messages as an example of the short-form communication it's encouraging; the other obvious example is (ugh) Twitter. But both these tools tend to get used for inane, meaningless, OMG LOL, non-communication. Email, which can be what it needs to be for whatever it needs to be, is how things get done. Don't destroy the tool to relieve inbox overload - sure, be a courteous emailer, but when long ones are the most usable, don't skimp!
[via Lifehacker]

No comments: