Post #3785711

:neobot: this is probably not a new observation by any means, but it's really interesting how some secondary text chat features like emote reacts serve specific social roles, and how they map to in-person mannerisms and utterances. this isn't universal (it only happens in a subset of groups we frequent), but often, reactions in text-based chat are somewhat analogous to smaller social cues like nodding, a small chuckle or groan, or some reactive facial expressions. things that don't "take the mic", so to speak, they don't alter the flow of the turn-taking, they only passively interject. in purely text-based chat, there's no analogous to these actions that doesn't implicitly claim the active speaker role, even if briefly: every text message is a text message, rendered in (usually) the same size as all others. that can feel like a somewhat crowded conversation (if everyone's reacting to each other in one-word text messages) or a fairly empty and detached one (if they don't). typing indicators have a similar anaolgue: expressions and gestures that indicate having something to say. or, if protracted, that one has something to say, but thinking about how to say it. if stopped, that they thought better of saying anything. the typing indicator in some other program we used (iirc old Skype?) was a pencil writing, and when cancelled, it animated the pencil briefly erasing its marks before vanishing. that little animation, that's them pulling back from wanting to speak, maybe shaking their head. together, reacts and typing indicators give a flow to some synchronous text conversations that feels impressively present and embodied, while also still being so abstracted. example: someone shares a grievance, two or three others pensive-react (they're nodding empathetically), one cry-reacts (they're groaning emphatically). another starts typing, but stops, and just adds to the reacts (they went to say something, hesitated, maybe realized it wasn't their place to say it, and also just passively nodded along). two others start typing, one stops (they noticed and deferred to the other speaker). the other stops too, awkwardly. they both stop and start a few times (they're doing the typical "no you speak/no you can go first" politeness dance in gestures), before one of them commits to it and says their bit. the other pauses for a bit, before typing, starting and stopping a few times (they're umming and hmming about how to say it), eventually saying something fairly long but well-though out, split into two replies (replies are a part of this too! they're looking at each other participant in turn, as they address them and their previous points). several react in varied fashion (nods, looks, and "yeahs" are exhanged). the conversation continues. it's a small, mundane, and maybe obvious thing, but seeing this kind of back and forths happen and a chat with even a dozen people, all flowing like a very natural conversation circle, is really really cool to notice and observe. it's really impressive that it works as well as it does, magical in a way. the pacing is obviously not always analogous to a physical conversation. text chats are inherently asynchronous, and time in this imaginary embodiement of the conversation often gets frozen for minutes or hours at a time. it's still super interesting to observe the parallels, oblique as they are.