Do you have somewhere to be?

[ob81]

This is the single biggest issue that I have had while wearing the watch. It will take society a while, if ever, to get over the idea of someone looking at a watch for the time because they have to go. I was working out with a friend and checking out my stats, and out of habit he asked me this twice, knowing I have an Apple Watch.

While at work, people know I have the Apple Watch, but they trail off when I glance at it while they are talking. I think a quick glance is better than looking at a cell phone while someone is talking, but I think we have a long road until we can use the watch throughout our day the way it is intended, without offending anyone.

I have managed to send a few voice texts in front of people with no issue, but this is easier because we obviously aren't engaged in conversation when I do it.

 

[flur]

This is the single biggest issue that I have had while wearing the watch. It will take society a while, if ever, to get over the idea of someone looking at a watch for the time because they have to go. I was working out with a friend and checking out my stats, and out of habit he asked me this twice, knowing I have an Apple Watch.

While at work, people know I have the Apple Watch, but they trail off when I glance at it while they are talking. I think a quick glance is better than looking at a cell phone while someone is talking, but I think we have a long road until we can use the watch throughout our day the way it is intended, without offending anyone.

I have managed to send a few voice texts in front of people with no issue, but this is easier because we obviously aren't engaged in conversation when I do it.

This is why I'd really like to be able to set different tap patterns or prominent haptics based on notification type. I want a tap each time I get a notification, but I want a way to know when I'm getting a text versus an email or a reminder to stand. That way, if I'm a conversation, I can choose to only look at my watch for the texts.

 

[samiznaetekto]

I agree, there's a problem. All wearable devices (not hidden in a pocket or under pants on an ankle ) are "glass-hole-ish" to one degree or another.

 

[mchoffa]

Tap patterns will be great if they allow it in the future. I already use vibrate patterns on the phone to know who is trying to contact me. Good for to know if it's someone important vs something I can ignore.

I will use the same etiquette as my phone, which is pretty much ignore it if I am having a one on one conversation with someone.

 

[Rayban]

Looking at your watch or looking at your phone is equally rude when in a conversation with someone. Each action tells that you're not interested at all.

 

[spiderman0616]

It's still up to us as the users of the device to not be rude. You can always choose not to address the information you're getting until you're in a situation where it's more polite to do so. Whether you make that choice or not is not Apple's fault. The Watch is doing its job letting you know there's something to look at. That's really its only job.

The benefit for you as the user is not having to dig out your phone and then get sucked into it, which is rude to an even greater degree while someone is talking to you.

The Apple Watch will at least be able to get us part of the way back to a time where you could go to dinner with friends and not sit in dead quiet while everyone reads their phones. Maybe it is rude to glance at your wrist while someone is talking, but it's the lesser of the two evils. Or you could just.....not look at your wrist when someone is talking to you!

 

[mchoffa]

I definitely don't get sucked in when I do look at my watch. My phone, on the other hand...

 

[Subdiv]

I had a boss a few years ago that would start looking at emails on his desktop computer during our 1 on 1 meetings. Whenever he did that, I would just stop talking. He would always say "I'm listening..." Irritated the heck out of me. Sometimes I would just ask "Is this a bad time for our meeting?"
I don't mind if someone tells me they are expecting an important email, but to just start looking at a watch/phone/computer in the middle of a conversation is just rude.

 

[AbeFrohman]

While at work, people know I have the Apple Watch, but they trail off when I glance at it while they are talking. I think a quick glance is better than looking at a cell phone while someone is talking, but I think we have a long road until we can use the watch throughout our day the way it is intended, without offending anyone.

Sorry, but in a polite, civilized society, YOU are the one that needs to change. Just because your phone/watch/whatever buzzes doesn't mean it has to be looked at RIGHT NOW.

Your wrist taps you, so you know there's something to look at. Great. It'll still be there once you're done with your IRL conversation. Be polite. That tweet/email/message can wait a few minutes while you interact with a human being.

 

[greytmom]

Sometimes I really do have somewhere to be... like a meeting. I just apologize and say "I'm just checking to make sure I'm not late for my 2 o'clock."

 

[ob81]

Sorry, but in a polite, civilized society, YOU are the one that needs to change. Just because your phone/watch/whatever buzzes doesn't mean it has to be looked at RIGHT NOW.

Your wrist taps you, so you know there's something to look at. Great. It'll still be there once you're done with your IRL conversation. Be polite. That tweet/email/message can wait a few minutes while you interact with a human being.

I actually agree with you. As one poster said, sometimes the notification is something that I surely waited to see/respond to. I would check it for a breaking CNBC. I think if people look at the watch as a device that lets you know that you have something to check instead of a device that lets you respond instantly to notifications, that would help.

 

[FuzzyLogic13]

Looking at your watch or looking at your phone is equally rude when in a conversation with someone. Each action tells that you're not interested at all.

Troof.

 

[AbeFrohman]

I actually agree with you. As one poster said, sometimes the notification is something that I surely waited to see/respond to. I would check it for a breaking CNBC. I think if people look at the watch as a device that lets you know that you have something to check instead of a device that lets you respond instantly to notifications, that would help.

In reading your original post and this follow up, I don't think you agree with me at all.

My point is that any time you're engaged in an in-person interaction with someone (as in a conversation or other interaction, not just hanging with the boys watching sports on TV or something similar), you have a societal obligation to be present and engaged, not checking your device (phone or watch) just because there's a new notification - CNBC or not. It says to the person in front of you, "you're not as important as whatever else just buzzed me."

I was saying that the notification tells you there's something to check... when you're done with the living, breathing, important person you're with.

 

[Randizzledante]

Sorry, but in a polite, civilized society, YOU are the one that needs to change. Just because your phone/watch/whatever buzzes doesn't mean it has to be looked at RIGHT NOW.

Your wrist taps you, so you know there's something to look at. Great. It'll still be there once you're done with your IRL conversation. Be polite. That tweet/email/message can wait a few minutes while you interact with a human being.

I like you, your signature, and generally everything you're about

 

[daijholt]

Looking at your watch or looking at your phone is equally rude when in a conversation with someone. Each action tells that you're not interested at all.

This might've been the case when we could all only manage one task at a time, but thanks to technology we are now able to multitask efficiently. I'm able to reply to a message on my phone and engage in a conversation with a friend at the same time, because I've conditioned myself to manage two thought processes at once so as not to piss people off.

What irritates me is when I'm trying to talk to someone who's on their phone, and rather than acknowledge that I've asked them something with so much as a "give me one sec and I'll be right with you" they just point blank ignore me with silence.

I understand that there many important things in our lives and now we have an endless amount of ways to keep up to date with them all, but there's a difference between multitasking by jumping back and forth between 2 conversations (text/in person) and there's outright rude when you focus entirely on texting and ignore someone who's standing 2 feet away from your face asking you a question.

 

[AbeFrohman]

This might've been the case when we could all only manage one task at a time, but thanks to technology we are now able to multitask efficiently. I'm able to reply to a message on my phone and engage in a conversation with a friend at the same time, because I've conditioned myself to manage two thought processes at once so as not to piss people off.

I understand that there many important things in our lives and now we have an endless amount of ways to keep up to date with them all, but there's a difference between multitasking by jumping back and forth between 2 conversations (text/in person) and there's outright rude when you focus entirely on texting and ignore someone who's standing 2 feet away from your face asking you a question.

We're not talking about "multitasking" as though this was a business transaction where multiple simultaneous things needed to happen all at once... We're talking about how we interact with people and the respect you give to them.

You may think that you're multitasking and not pissing people off, but if you're truly engaged with the person you're interacting with and want to show respect, be 100% present. Not multitasking, not switching back and forth.... Sure, you may be able to "mange your two thought processes" at the same time - we can all do that. It's like driving while having a conversation with your passenger. Multitasking.

But to be interacting with someone and then refocus on something else or a different conversation? That lessens their worth. Whatever text message or email you got can wait. The earth will still keep spinning if you don't reply immediately.

 

[daijholt]

We're not talking about "multitasking" as though this was a business transaction where multiple simultaneous things needed to happen all at once... We're talking about how we interact with people and the respect you give to them.

You may think that you're multitasking and not pissing people off, but if you're truly engaged with the person you're interacting with and want to show respect, be 100% present. Not multitasking, not switching back and forth.... Sure, you may be able to "mange your two thought processes" at the same time - we can all do that. It's like driving while having a conversation with your passenger. Multitasking.

But to be interacting with someone and then refocus on something else or a different conversation? That lessens their worth. Whatever text message or email you got can wait. The earth will still keep spinning if you don't reply immediately.

You are 100% right.

Unfortunately some of us have so much happening during a work day that giving any one person total attention is tough to do. It's a sad side effect of the culture we've created where everything that needs doing needs to be done "RIGHT STAT NOW DAMMIT!!!" So someone can add another million things to your task list.

This is part of the reason I bought apple watch, so that when I'm out with friends or family I can leave my phone in my pocket and not get sucked up in emails and updates from those little badge numbers on my homscreen.

I get a notification, my watch pings, I raise my wrist, is it work related? If yes, I lower wrist and forget about it until tomorrow. Like Apple said, if you pull your phone out to check just one item, you feel compelled to deal with everything else while youre there, then it becomes a never ending cycle.

 

[ob81]

In reading your original post and this follow up, I don't think you agree with me at all.

My point is that any time you're engaged in an in-person interaction with someone (as in a conversation or other interaction, not just hanging with the boys watching sports on TV or something similar), you have a societal obligation to be present and engaged, not checking your device (phone or watch) just because there's a new notification - CNBC or not. It says to the person in front of you, "you're not as important as whatever else just buzzed me."

I was saying that the notification tells you there's something to check... when you're done with the living, breathing, important person you're with.

Nah, I do agree with you. You just completely misunderstood my post. Probably caught you off guard that no one argued with one of your responses! Be easy buddy, and thanks.

 

[jjlannoo]

This is the single biggest issue that I have had while wearing the watch. It will take society a while, if ever, to get over the idea of someone looking at a watch for the time because they have to go. I was working out with a friend and checking out my stats, and out of habit he asked me this twice, knowing I have an Apple Watch.

While at work, people know I have the Apple Watch, but they trail off when I glance at it while they are talking. I think a quick glance is better than looking at a cell phone while someone is talking, but I think we have a long road until we can use the watch throughout our day the way it is intended, without offending anyone.

I have managed to send a few voice texts in front of people with no issue, but this is easier because we obviously aren't engaged in conversation when I do it.

Well its rude to look at Your phone, watch or anything when directly conversing. Since many convos are short its very easy to put other stuff off and look them square in the eye as you should. I get highly annoyed if I don't receive eye contact while talking. Hell animals give you that.

 

[Randizzledante]

This might've been the case when we could all only manage one task at a time, but thanks to technology we are now able to multitask efficiently. I'm able to reply to a message on my phone and engage in a conversation with a friend at the same time, because I've conditioned myself to manage two thought processes at once so as not to piss people off.

I think that a lot of people think this, whether it is true or not is up for debate.

 

[greytmom]

in my line of work, I'm constantly in demand. Hell, I have even had people follow me into the restroom and ask me questions from the other side of the stall's wall! For the record, unless it is an emergency, I say to them "let me get back to you when I am not using the bathroom." I don't care if they think that is rude. I think it is rude to not allow me a moment of privacy.

Point of my story: it is not unusual for someone to bounce into my office two minutes before I have to be in a meeting and want to talk. Damn straight I look at my watch, and if they ask me if I need to be somewhere, I tell them, yep, I sure do, but I can call you afterwards.

 

[macduke]

Looking at your watch or looking at your phone is equally rude when in a conversation with someone. Each action tells that you're not interested at all.

Or it could tell them you're a website admin who is always expecting the worst. Some people rely on notifications as a huge part of their job.

 

[Jd3774life]

I agree, I was at church this past weekend and an email would come through or facebook notification and I would look at my wrist just to make sure it wasn't a family member trying to reach me for an emergency or anything and then i noticed people around me looking like "Wow, need to be somewhere?.." I obviously wasn't trying to be rude or anything but it looks like I am worried about how long service is going Haha..

 

[flur]

It's still up to us as the users of the device to not be rude.

Totally agreed, but... Last week my husband and I were meeting up with some friends after work (all four of us coming from our jobs). A friend and I got there at the same time and we chatted while waiting for my husband and the friend's wife. With my phone in my pocket, I can tell from the vibration pattern whether or not I need to interrupt our conversation to check a text from my husband. With the watch, I have to glance at it for EVERY notification. In that sense, the watch is a step back in terms of getting back to the distraction-free dinner out.

 

[spiderman0616]

Totally agreed, but... Last week my husband and I were meeting up with some friends after work (all four of us coming from our jobs). A friend and I got there at the same time and we chatted while waiting for my husband and the friend's wife. With my phone in my pocket, I can tell from the vibration pattern whether or not I need to interrupt our conversation to check a text from my husband. With the watch, I have to glance at it for EVERY notification. In that sense, the watch is a step back in terms of getting back to the distraction-free dinner out.

That's a good point--I didn't think about it from that angle because I have never set up the custom vibrations on my iPhone. I have to believe that's coming to the Watch too though--especially because the taptic engine is one of the main marketing pillars.