Blog

Babel fish territory? You bet, Adobe.

I had a column to write, and my eye lit on Adobe's Acrobat Connect - and it occurred to me that most of my worst disagreements, feuds, and misunderstandings were caused by software designed to "facilitate communication." So I wrote a column for IT Week, pointing out that Douglas Adams was right.

It was Adams who invented the Babel Fish, if you recall. "Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."

And (I wrote in my column) "Interactive is a word with more meanings than it is safe to translate ? and Adobe is stepping right into Babel Fish territory by putting web conferencing 'for all' onto Acrobat, via Acrobat Connect."

Boy! was I tempting fate! And boy! did Fate yield to temptation! I got picked up by a set of Adobe bloggers. Scott Fegette seems to have noticed that I was suggesting that Acrobat Connect was not necessarily going to solve the problems of World Peace. Did he read the whole column? Well, we can assume he did, but it's not apparent from what he wrote since he picked up on one quote:

"(Connect) is one of many trying to recreate the old chatroom mentality." Now [he went on] 

I can respect an alternate opinion, but Connect is anything BUT a regression to the old chatroom mentality (although it does support text chat as one of many communication mediums, sure - and I'd likely buy 'an evolution of the old chatroom mentality' as a more germane statement). VoIP (as well as direct phone bridging for those without headsets and broadband connections) is supported for real-time voice communication, falling back to chat pods for text-based discussion. But when's the last time you were able to access a live screencast of a remote computer inside a text-based chat? I'd wager the answer is 'never'.

After that, he calmed down a bit, and got on with the business of promoting his product (well, his company's product!) by saying how much he liked Connect. And then (here comes the fun bit, believe me) he tackled the meat.

OK, my thesis was that online chat, without the benefit of the other person watching you and listening to you, led to misunderstandings.

What I meant was simple. If I start saying: "You clumsy buffoon! - you're wearing your trousers on your head!" and you think I mean it - that I'm serious, you really look like you have your trousers on your head - then in the real world, your misunderstanding will become apparent to me before I've finished my attempt at a joke. And if you respond: "These are pelican-crossing camouflage!" your face will make it clear that you didn't realise I was trying to be funny. Long before it has escalated into open warfare, the unspeakable sentences will not have been spoken.

Online, they will be. Oh yes, indeed. Read the following comments, and see just how well they will be spoken online!

For those who still don't "get it" the bit that he seems to be upset about, is the bit where I illustrate just how a flame war can get going:

"What you need, of course, is an AI avatar which responds with a hurt, or apologetic, or amused face, based on the likely response of your correspondent. It's all very well putting your own "smiley" into online conversation; but what "interactive" means, is that the other person's smile is seen in response. Without that, you could start a fight. It's all Adobe's fault. Why can't they understand a simple point like this? They must be really, really stupid..."

It's meant to be [duh] an example of how, if nobody stops your misguided assumption right at the start (like, by looking horrified, or apologetic, or even terrified) you can carry on, and on, and get yourself really really worked up... and he's taken it at face value, and got really really worked up. And so have a dozen other people...

Case closed, I think. But I'm sure it would have all worked out really well if we'd been using Connect...

In a non-Dilbert world, of course, the bit where Scott read my piece is the point where his PR company would have phoned me and said: "Have you actually used Connect? Would you like to?" and we would get on with our lives. (I wonder whether Scott simply can't believe that the phone number at the bottom of this page will ring if he dials it...?)