People who ask quick questions on chat almost invariably could have found the answer with 20 minutes work. Answering those questions frequently costs the answerer more than 20 minutes of flow; interruptions are costly to focus.

But this is the case for face-to-face conversations as well.

Quite. Which is why I'd like a full-remote job.

A while back, while working in a relatively large but sparsely filled open-plan setup, I had a tendency to hide in the far corner of the building when I had code to write. My manager at the time once complained "I start walking over to see you, but when I'm half way there I decide it's not important". I think he did, at least, pretty quickly realise what he was saying.

Having a (low-ish, but meaningful) transactional cost to "quick questions" is a good thing.

People can pick up on social cues much easier in person, however.

Whether it's headphones, or making it clear what a context switch looks like, trivial questions are definitely cut down.

Chatting favours subjects that only require a short span of attention. At the same time, anything of real value will take a minimum length and complexity to explain. That is why the output of chat/messaging tends to be worth little to nothing. Chat/messaging is something appreciated by demographics who do not have anything useful to say anyway. To an important extent, it is the same kind of people who have a hard time finding a job, and when they finally get one, they don't manage to keep it for long.

So much this.

One can have lengthy and substantive conversations over chat — and I do — but it's definitely an uphill battle, both against the medium and against the prevalent psychological, and intellectual cognitive characteristics of the people who favour it. I frequently get the feeling that I'm not using chat the way I'm "supposed" to, which is to write in short sentences and traffic in reductive sound-bites.

What an incredibly arrogant and conceited thing to say. As someone who favors chat this amounts to a personal attack on me and everyone like me -- a personal attack completely devoid of supporting evidence.

I've worked at two different remote companies over the past 5 years. One was failing the other is succeeding and growing. Chat played little role in either case, it was simply one of the chosen methods of communication. One method in a tool box that also included email and video chat.

In both companies, chat functioned very well as the stand in for most office conversations. We only fall back on video chat when we find ourselves talking past each other in chat and need the higher bandwidth of voice communication to clear up the confusion. We almost never use email in either case.

I've also used it in several non-profit organizations I've served on the board of and as an organizing tool among local activists. In all cases, it has served me well, allowing conversations that could span from exchanges of long, in depth arguments or explanations to quick exchanges of information or Q&As.

Chat is a tool. It doesn't favor or dictate anything. It's all in how you use it.

If you find yourself continuously having low value conversations over chat, I think that says far more about you than it does about chat.

Chats are excellent alternative means of communications for people who can benefit from augmented communication, like the deaf or hard of hearing, or people with social anxiety, or folks who simply lack the ability to communicate verbally but are perfectly competent and able to use their "voice". Besides that, your personal views about how useless chats are may just be an indication that you have deficiencies that prevent you from benefitting fully from text communication. And I don't see how you made any connections with specific demographics who use chats or messaging, other than your personal biases. I frequently use messaging with my coworkers and clients because it's extremely efficient. And look. I'm employed.