geo@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (George Bray) (07/16/90)
Recent discussions about the effectiveness of communication by email or real-time telephone conversations have argued that the textual media is inferior. In comparing these technologies I think there's a system between them providing benefits of both - VoiceMail. Today, VoiceMail is like a store-and-forward telephone answering machine. The benefits of vocal cues and inflection are available on a read-it-when-you-want basis. Unfortunately, VoiceMail is not as widespread as USENET. When it is, it might be as useful and communicative as the telephone. George Bray
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (07/17/90)
George Bray writes: > Today, VoiceMail is like a store-and-forward telephone answering > machine. The benefits of vocal cues and inflection are available on a > read-it-when-you-want basis. I was thinking about this last night. My e-mail archives are in over 100 folders, I can grep through them, and it's easy (and considered appropriate) to dice up old messages and turn them into new ones. Voice mail isn't currently that functional. When I can "inc" my voice mail, respond to it as easily, archive it if suitable, and grep through it for that important meeting annoucement, then it'll be a replacement for e-mail. In this vein, recently on the Andrew mailing list from Robert Glickstein, a discussion of why to convert to the Andrew multimedia Messaging System: ...from the home office in PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA: Top 10 Reasons to Convert to AMS 10. Multimedia 9. Enthusiastic support from ITC and other AMS users 8. Bitmapped, glass tty, dumb tty, and emacs interfaces 7. That "Le Car" is just the jauntiest thing around... Oh, sorry, that's a reason to convert to *AMC* 6. Mail filtering with FLAMES 5. Active message features: Votes, return-receipts, subscription invitations, auto-redistribution, etc. 4. Most up-to-date popular mail system 3. Bugs: You find 'em, we fix 'em 2. Seamless interface with ATK ...and the number one reason to convert to AMS: 1. Annoy your colleagues all over the world with those nasty "An Andrew ToolKit view (a raster image) was included here, but could not be displayed" messages! [An Andrew ToolKit view (a ThrillCam ride) was included here, but could not be displayed.] Edward Vielmetti
hlison@bbn.com (Herb Lison) (07/17/90)
George Bray writes: > Unfortunately, VoiceMail is not as widespread as USENET. When it is, it > might be as useful and communicative as the telephone. There is an even better solution for people with workstations: Multi-media e-mail. The BBN/Slate package supports text, graphics, images, spreadsheets and voice within a single document. This product effectively integrates the capabilities of e-mail, fax and voice-mail within the same user interface. Herb Lison
sblair@synoptics.COM (Steven C. Blair) (07/17/90)
There are currently 2 systems that I know of that can crossover
voicemail and email on the market. They are not sold as one, but
work together.
1) All-In-One with a ROLM phone system: The voicemail sends a short
mail message to the user <name>. Rudimentary, but functional.
2) CE Software's Quickmail, and Farralon Voice Terminal: work together
as one. You can voicemail someone, or have a copy of a voicemail
appended to an email message.
The time is certainly ripe for some company to come up with something
and get the sucker shipping *now*. But having worked in the areas of
voice synthesis, and computer email strategies, the 2 are not as simple
as apple pie and ice cream to co-exist in a single system.
Steven C. Blairjgsmith@BCM.TMC.EDU (James G. Smith) (07/17/90)
There is a fundamental difference between email and voicemail. Email is composed whereas voicemail is spontaneous. Thus, email has the potential to contain information which is better organized and certainly requires less disk space to store. I would also like to make a comment to those who claim that you lose voice inflection and body language in email. ppphhhhhtt! :) Of course, email doesn't have the same potential for inflection and body language as real presence, but then, the reverse is also true. A lot depends on the creativity and vitality of the writer, which is also true of speakers. I have seen some articles with *lots* of inflection (or is that LOTS of inflection?) * (at least it wasn't ***OHJUSTLOTS*** of inflection) ;) (and just a little body language) James Smith
rick@soma.neuro.bcm.tmc.edu (Rick Gray) (07/17/90)
We have voice mail here at Baylor, and I have been very disappointed with it (not specifically with the system here; it's probably pretty good compared to others). Unlike my cheapo tape answering machine at home, you can't pause it and back up a few inches to catch a phone number someone says quickly. You have to go back to the beginning and listen to the whole thing over and over until you hit the wrong button on the phone and erase it by accident. We also get tons of hangups. I had hoped I could call a company with a question, leaving it on their voice mail if necessary, and have them call back with a response on my voice mail. It hasn't worked that way at all; I'll get a message saying so-and-so called, please call back. A day or two of telephone tag finally results in the answer such as "What you want is part number ZT245A and it costs $123.45". It could have been easily left on the machine, but messages like that rarely are. I greatly prefer email-- I can re-read it as often as I like, file it away for later reference, or edit it for a reply. The only problem is that most companies don't have the technology or knowledge to use email. If the voice mail is stored digitally, shouldn't a smart phone switch be able to transfer the digitized message to a computer with a voice-quality D/A and speaker (like a NeXT or SparcStation)? I would consider that a great product. Even better would be the additional ability to reply vocally and have the computer send the message to the replyee's voice mail system. I would expect that voice <--> text translations would be a bit further in the future. Rick Gray
geo@ditsyda.syd.dit.csiro.au (George Bray) (07/21/90)
Edward Vielmetti spoke thus: > My e-mail archives are in over 100 folders, I can grep through them, > and it's easy (and considered appropriate) to dice up old messages and > turn them into new ones. Voice mail isn't currently that functional. > When I can "inc" my voice mail, respond to it as easily, archive it if > suitable, and grep through it for that important meeting annoucement, > then it'll be a replacement for e-mail. I guess this is another application for voice recognition. Even applying keywords to voicemail would be too much work. Is there someone out there using a NeXT? What are your experiences relating email and VoiceMail? grep meeting inbox "You have a meeting at four fifteen...." George Bray