[masklinn]

> I disagree with a lot of this article because it assumes that we are efficient robots that just need things to be searchable and written down.

It assumes no such thing. If anything it assumes the opposite of your assertion, that we are not perfectly efficient robots able to instantaneously and fully recall the content of transient discussions. Written content is perennial and searchable, so it can be retrieved in the future if necessary without being limited by human foibles and memory.

Even if the search is bad and the system is not especially designed for it, I regularly manage to find information I dimly recall through search in discord and friends, something which would be entirely impossible using video calls. IME that is in fact a regular issue, people asserting that things were told during discussions and there's no way to confirm it, have context, … because the discussion was a voice / video call.

> The article also assumes every one is a native speaker who can write quickly and clearly in a chat -- in a lot of international projects this is not the case.

Have you been in that scenario, ever? Video calls are infinitely worse than typed text between non-native speakers. And if the call is not going to be in english… why would the written communication be so?

> I find that there is less chance for misunderstanding and aggression if you disagree over a video call.

I find that there are regular shouting matches over video calls, and collisions between speakers makes the experience miserable. It's also impossible to dive in and out and recover the information, if you arrive on a group discussion midway you can read the history, if you dive out for a bit you can read what you missed. On a video call, it's gone.

> Also, human contact and informal communication make life and working more enjoyable.

To you.

[acatnamedjoe]

If there are "regular shouting matches" going on in any form of meeting then I would suggest the organisation in question has cultural problems way beyond the communication tool being used.

[papaf]

Have you been in that scenario, ever? Video calls are infinitely worse than typed text between non-native speakers. And if the call is not going to be in english… why would the written communication be so?

I am in this scenario every work day as a non-native speaker. I much prefer talking to people than trying to get the text correct.

[subw00f]

I'm also in that scenario everyday with other 3 non native speakers from different countries, text is preferred unanimously. Tbh, that's the first time I encounter a non native speaker software engineer who prefers video calls.

[foldr]

While there may be some people who don’t enjoy human contact, I think it’s a little unfair to suggest that this is some kind of idiosyncratic preference of the original poster. It’s a basic human need. Most people who work full time will want to have some kind of social contact within working hours.

[masklinn]

> While there may be some people who don’t enjoy human contact

We're not discussing human contact, we're discussing video calls.

> I think it’s a little unfair to suggest that this is some kind of idiosyncratic preference of the original poster.

So pointing out that people differ is "a little unfair" but asserting liking video calls is a universal human requirement and enjoyment is fine?

> It’s a basic human need.

History is full of people who happily did without.

[foldr]

It was not clear from your post that you were referring to video calls rather than human contact in general. Here is the part I was responding to:

>> Also, human contact and informal communication make life and working more enjoyable.

>To you.

I think the vast majority of people would prefer having social contact via video calls to the alternative of having no social contact or having it only via text chat - yes. But I was not talking specifically about video calls.

[tluyben2]

> I think the vast majority of people would prefer having social contact via video calls to the alternative of having no social contact

I believe that too, but for me at least, video chat is for chitchat and banter and text chat for everything, including substance. This is the same for in person; I enjoy going with clients and colleagues to coffeeshops and bars, but we don't get much done in either (in bar, if with techies, actually more than you would think) but it is nice for the human contact.

(Talking work context here if that was not clear)

[a1369209993]

> I think the vast majority of people would prefer having social contact via video calls to the alternative of having no social contact or having it only via text chat

Cursory evidence - namely, your up-versus-down-votes on this and the GP comment (both currently gray) - suggests that said majority is not really all that vast.

[foldr]

I think threads like this tend to end up with a specific subset of people reading them and weird voting patterns. Let’s look again at the point I was responding to:

>> Also, human contact and informal communication make life and working more enjoyable.

>To you.

Present the second statement to anyone outside a certain subset of HN readers and they would just sigh and shake their heads. But on HN we can actually have lengthy debates about whether or not humans are indeed social animals!

The votes are pretty even, incidentally. My comments have been alternately positive and negative.

[baash05]

Personally, I like having chat's with my mates, over vids. I can chat with them async too. I don't need to see them to hear their voice in text.