Standard voice chat is build into most instant messaging clients, but it currently emulates CB radio, not instant messaging. This is a bizarre discrepancy, isn’t it? Some voice chats are full duplex, so they emulate a telephone. A nice little throwback, eh? I guess the idea is that if you’re sitting right there in front of the instant messaging client, you don’t want to click on each voice message as it comes in.. you just want to hear it and respond.

Step back and look at the task of typing out an instant message on a computer. It’s slower than voice (not as much information transferred per unit time, unless you can type 200+ words per minute) and it suffers from most of the drawbacks of a telephone conversation (you can’t see expressions on the other person’s face, you’re chained to some device and missing out on some part of reality, etc.)

For all these drawbacks, I see a few benefits to typed instant messaging. The recipent doesn’t have to be around to get the message, a response is not immediately required, and a message can be read faster than it can be spoken. A message can be thoroughly reviewed before sending. This is what makes IM worthwhile to so many people. Especially: since I don’t have to reply right away, I can finish up some other task on the computer, then compose my reply. My other task could be anything.. possibly another IM conversation.

Now. Why isn’t it possible to set up voice chat so it emulates instant messaging rather than a telephone? You say your message to me and it gets queued up on my computer. I listen to it when I’m ready and reply.

The ultimate scenario involves either speech recognition (so you can edit your text before sending, and so it arrives as text not voice) or an easy way to review and overdub your message before sending it. These are probably major drawbacks, rendering the idea infeasible at the moment. But I still like it.