Activity Streams: Realtime and Streamtime

The realtime web is living on borrowed time. Not in the sense that time’s running out on realtime. But in the sense that the realtime web actually involves two kinds of time. One is the time in which information is delivered. We call that realtime. The other is the user’s time, which I’m going to call streamtime.

Realtime is immediate, streamtime is borrowed. The realtime web operates immediately. The streamtime experience is immediacy.

A lot has been said about realtime and our immediate access to information, but little has been said about streamtime, or the immediacy with which we experience realtime. And since streamtime relates to our consumption of realtime content, the concept might be worth unpacking.

The web collapses the distance between production and consumption. In realtime web terms, the stream delivers information instantaneously. The user, in streamtime, has access to it as if it were there. So where realtime information delivery has to do with simple clock time, streamtime involves the immediacy with which we relate to realtime information. This immediacy is actually a kind of proximity — of the kind sometimes called “ambient intimacy.”

Streamtime is about proximity. And proximity combines two concepts: closeness and now. Immediacy as here, and immediately as now. And since there is no “space” on the internet, when we say proximity, we mean it in different terms: not spatial distance but presence.

But when we say presence, we usually mean individual presence: the presence of other people sensed through realtime social tools. So the streamtime experience actually contains two separate kinds of proximity: that of the information itself (delivered in realtime) and that of its sender.

Of course, we don’t think of the information source as a sender — we think of the person. It’s this trick of imagination that allows us to “feel” connected through the wire. (What I’ve called “approximity” in the past.)

For example, streamtime, not realtime, is the dimension in which attention is paid. Attention is awareness (directed mental attention, or focus), and time. Attention is paid by when we mentally select something to pay attention to, and is paid for as long as we hold that in our awareness. So streamtime then involves a commitment of attention to a steady stream of incoming information, much of which is messages (updates, tweets, etc).

Some of these messages are personal messages, some are system messages. Personal messages are communication of a sort. System messages are as if sent by a person, insofar as they report on a user’s activity. They are sent automatically, but we read them as if they were personal messages and can sense who they are about. Activity updates may not be in the words of the user, but they’re nonetheless a proxy for communication.

Streamtime, then, not only takes attention paid to the information and content itself, but also takes the attention we pay to each other, and which we spend by communicating. Where information is just that, information, communication is actionable. We can respond to it, reflect on what a person meant, reply, or forward (RT) it. Or rather, we can respond to the person, not to “it.”

Streamtime raises the constant possibility that we might take up communication with a person — at a minimum it requires the increased attention we pay to people (over information straight up). This is the demand on the attention economy staged by realtime and experienced in realtime: that we think not only about what’s been said but about the person who said it.

Social tools to help with the demands of interacting and communicating may be an area still ripe for innovation. These demands are real, and they affect not only users and how they maintain friendships, but also brands and how they connect to customers. If the cost of realtime is paid in streamtime, then communication, not just information, is the problem we’re facing.

This entry was posted in Streams, SxD Theory, Twitter and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • aslevin

    This is a really lovely post.

    Responses in two different directions:
    Nicole Lazzarro talks about game play and game design through a flow of emotions: curiosity, amusement, fiero. This is the emotional flow of pleasurable competition; social software and social media also engage the emotional flows of collaboration and of intimacy, how does this relate to design?

    To look at one example: what is the genius in the thrill of the twitter reply? I have been recognized; I have been recognized in public; there is a response to a call.

    The second reaction has to do with the way that people use multiple modes, and will escalate from twitter to chat, chat to voice, add backchannel to voice, from phone to present. The social norms of escalation are emerging, subcultural, and personal. The escalation usually crosses tools; skype chat to skype voice is one of the few examples of this that works fairly well.

  • http://www.gravity7.com/blog/media/ gravity7

    Thanks!

    I'll let Goffman respond here. Granted, mediated talk works differently than f2f, but the gist is in here nonetheless!

    “Thus, as Adam Smith argued in his Theory of the Moral Sentiments, the individual must phrase his own concerns and feelings and interests in such a way as to make these maximally usable by the others as a source of appropriate involvement; and this major obligation of the individual qua interactant is balanced by his right to expect that other present will make some effort to stir up their sympathies and place them at his command. These two tendencies, that of the speaker to scale down his expressions and that of the listeners to scale up their interests, each in the light of the other's capacities and demands, form the bridge that people build to one another, allowing them to meet for a moment of talk in a communion of reciprocally sustained involvement. It is this spark, not the more obvious kinds of love, that lights up the world.” Erving Goffman Interaction Ritual 116

  • aslevin

    I think this is one of the things that @cheeky_geeky intends when he contends that there is no such thing as Twitter conversation; he describes and advocates a stream of perfectly non-intersecting, unmodulated microblog micropodium little speeches whose goal is to attract audience. I think he's wrong; but the combination of broadcast and interaction is odd and interesting.

  • Pingback: » The Theory Behind Social Interaction Design Johnny Holland – It's all about interaction » Blog Archive