Presuming face to face is 'better'... some past papers (was RE: [Air-l] e-mail destroying friendships?)

[Anderson, Ben]

> Along with Nancy I'm dubious about claims regarding particular forms 
> of communication as, at least implicitly, "ideal" or even "more 
> human" than others (which is not to say that some may not be "more 
> mediated" than others).

There has been some thinking along these lines in the HCI/CSCW
community. See for example Hollan and Stornetta's 1992 paper 'Beyond
being there'
(http://www.hcibib.org/gs.cgi?word=checked&terms=C.CHI.92.119) and Paul
Dourish et al's 1996 paper
http://www.hcibib.org/gs.cgi?word=checked&terms=J.JCSCW.5.1.33

These were reactions to the at the time (and still, to some extent)
popular  analytic trick of comparing audio/video mediated communication
with 'face to face' and thus showing how IT mediated communication was
'poorer'. Dourish  et al point out that it is 'different' and, in some
contexts, can be 'better'.

Ben