In the last few years I've grow very accustomed to using IM for both work and personal communication. I'm generally online a majority of my waking hours. I recently read a post, by Danah Boyd on the different kind of IM usage that neatly framed up the usage patterns I have experienced.
"The problem with IM is that the always-on'rs have gotten far more comfortable with the technology than those who still see it as a communication tool, not just a desirable presence tool. The cultural divide is very much magnified by experience and time spent engaged in the technology. Of course, the split happens around those who recognize the value of presence and want to do what it takes culturally to retain that."
Danah Boyd, cultural divide in IM: presence vs. communication
My stance is that IM is a valuable presence tool. I am "on" all day long. I not available to have a day long conversation, any more than you can stop by my office and stay for an entire day. Being present to my colleagues in India makes a huge difference in my effectiveness. I have tried to explain this to people who are entering into software development that spans geographic boundaries. Some people just don't seem to get it; they can't handle the idea that someone might message them and they don't have time to respond at just that moment. The same person knows exactly how to send a caller away from the office door, or how to ignore a ringing phone.
The odd thing about me is that I have no desire to carry a cell phone. A cell phone is simply another tool for being always on, that isn't terribly different from an IM client. Somehow the cell phone feels like more of a burden to me. I suppose the price of IM also plays into this decision. Would I use IM if I had to spend an extra $40 per month to use it?
