Non-verbal communication during computer mediated communication

Computer mediated communication services certainly come in a wide range of configurations from simple chat to full video conferencing scenarios. None provide all of the non-verbal queues that a fact to face engagement would have. A simple chat experience is least expressive. The only non-verbal communication are emoticons and the unusually long pause that may arise during a chat. Even a pause may be misidentified; is the speaker distracted or was the pause an artifact of the communication in the chat thread? Do computer-generated messages count as non-verbal communication. These automatic messages are often used by support centers to for commonly used phrases/messages. If the receiver identifies a message as such, he may ascertain that perhaps the message was a common. An alternative may be that the computerized, one-size fits all, message really didn't fit what needed to be communicated and perhaps the sender wasn't concerned enough to manually communicate the a 'high-fidelity' message. Video conferencing (audio/video) probably has much better affordance of non-verbal communication. Video provides an uninterrupted stream of communication; even when nothing is spoken, the video is still relaying images captured by the camera. Therefore, body-language and other visual cues may be relayed, provided the subject is in view.

Experience with Synchronous Technology

I've found that synchronous technology is best employed when all participating parties are fluent with the technology. For this exercise, I used Skype's video conferencing service. Both participants were familiar with Skype but the other participant wasn't fluent. The experience had a few snags as the participant struggled to find a particular widget or setting. Unfortunately, video chatting is often beleaguered by inconsistent audio and video quality. A video chat session can quickly degrade into the awkward experience where the audio/video is cutting in and out and the participants aren't sure what was delivered; basically overall confusion. This experience is more tolerable if the participants are well acquainted but is extra awkward when the engagement constitutes the initial introduction and first impressions are established. the participants are still feeling each other out.

That being said, a video conferencing service that is as easy as picking up the phone and calling someone would certainly ease the experience for the majority of people. I consider myself somewhat technically savvy, but I often cringe and become frustrated when troubleshooting something moderately technical when it should 'just work'. The Appliances are often single-purposed and serve that purpose very well.

Chat has generally been the most robust means of synchronous communication in my experience. However, it is not completely painless. Your favorite Instant Messaging software is often blocked by IT policies in many corporate environments. Another potential snag is that the common corporate IM software, Office Communicator, only runs on the computer provided by the company. If a contractor hasn't been granted a corporate computer, he may not participate in corporate IM communication.

When on my own turf, I prefer to use chat because it is generally quick and non-problematic . In cases where I want a more immersive experience, I will sacrifice the time end effort to setup and troubleshoot a video chat session.