| ||||||||||||
RefBan
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
How to Focus and Stay Productive When You're Expected to Always Be Available
August 8th, 2012Top StoryHow to Focus and Stay Productive When You're Expected to Always Be AvailableBy Alan Henry
The Problem: Distractions Are Part Of Your JobAt my last job, I didn't have the luxury of checking my email only when I wanted to. People would ask me as soon as I walked in if I got their email from the night before, and if I didn't respond to an email or IM within a few minutes—especially if it was urgent—I could expect someone standing at my desk asking about it. I'm willing to bet that your job is similar: you probably can't just tell your boss "Sorry, I only check my email twice a day." A slowly filling inbox, distracting instant messages, meetings scheduled when you're trying to work—they're all facts of life for most of us, and while we often discuss how you can eliminate distractions, for many of us those distractions are our work. All is not lost, though! You can bring those interruptions under control so you can focus and get work done without being frustrated every time someone IMs you, or without jumping into your email every time a new message comes in. In this post, we're going to discuss how. Photo by TJ. So how do you take control when you're expected to be on top of your inbox and available via IM all day? Here's the short version: You need to start working on your own terms, but learn to walk the line between what you can get away with and what your coworkers—and more importantly, your boss—won't allow. Don't tell your boss that you "only check your email at 10am, 2pm, and 4pm," just set your mail client to check for new messages every 90 minutes instead of every five and see how it works. Get called out for missing an email? Bring it back to 60 minutes. See where we're going? Let's dive in. Tame Your Distracting Inbox, Instant Messages, and Phone by Putting Them on AutopilotYour email, corporate IM, and your phone are all probably the biggest sources of distraction at your job, and yet they're the things you're always expected to respond to when they start ringing and beeping. That doesn't mean you have to be a slave to it though. Here's what we mean:
The point isn't to stop getting your email, just to stop jumping like a trained dog every time a new message lands, and to choose the smallest amount of time you know you can go between checks. That way you know how long you can work in peace in between new messages. Distractions cease to be distractions when they're scheduled, planned for, and on your terms. You can still have the convenience of near-real-time email without hearing a "ding!" every 30 seconds.
Make Your Phone Less Distracting by Keeping It Quiet but In Sight: You have surprisingly little control over your desk phone—after all, when someone calls you they're essentially saying "I want your attention right this second," so unplugging it is a bad idea. One trick I've used was to move the phone so the flashing call indicator and the caller ID were in view from my field of vision while working on my computer, and then turn the ringer off. That way I was never startled or jarred by a blaring phone, and when the red light started flashing, I could glance at it without taking my fingers off the keyboard and decide whether to answer it. Even if I didn't answer it but wanted to call the person back, I'd make a note in an open text file on my desktop to give them a ring back and return to the task at hand. The same applies to your smartphone. If you can, keep it docked somewhere you can see it, and prune those notifications so it's not a distraction either. I like to keep the sound off while I work, but if you need audible cues, try our set of soothing alerts for more gentle notification sounds. Add Order to Your Calendar by Scheduling EverythingYou don't have to get down to the level of programming your entire day, but when we say "schedule everything," we mean schedule your working time, your lunch, your breaks, everything that you want to use your time for. The only actual "free" time on your calendar should be time when you're actually available for phone calls and meetings—time that's not allocated to something specific. Even then, as soon as it is, you should schedule it. When I was a project manager, I had meetings every single day. Even worse, I was responsible for scheduling most of them. I learned pretty quickly that the only time I could truly tell people I was "unavailable" were the times that were blocked off on my calendar (and even then, they'd ignore it, but that's another problem entirely.) So I started scheduling my work—or times when I was head-down and wanted everyone to know I was busy. Then I started specifically scheduling my breaks so people would know when I wasn't around and when I'd be back. Sometimes those appointments would be private (but still blocked off on the calendar) but they got the message across. Be flexible though—sometimes you'll have to let someone make inroads to your work time if it's the only time everyone else can make a meeting. When you're ready to take it to the next step, consider pre-scheduling entire days as "in" or "out" based on what needs to get done that day. Finally, let your calendar work for you instead of against you. Boomerang Calendar is a great tool that'll auto-fill your appointments with locations, attendees, and times based on your email, and lets you see—from your inbox—whether you're free at a specific time. No more toggling between your calendar and your inbox to check your schedule. Take Care Of Yourself, Control Your Environment, and Teach Your Coworkers MannersFor many of us, our office environment is the thing we have the least control over. What you do have control over however, is your own mood, your health, and your own behavior at the office. Here's how to tackle the physical:
The Bottom Line: Remix Your Own Style, and Make Moderate, Incremental ChangesThe biggest takeaway here is that all of these productivity methods are great, and while it's easy to get caught up in all things productivity, the only method that's going to work for you is the one that you'll actually follow, and that fits into the way your job requires you to work. Photo by mlpeixoto. Don't be afraid to remix any or all of these methods to make your own franken-system that lets the important stuff through while giving you room to focus on your job. Test it, try it out, and if you push too hard one way, lighten up. Be flexible, and you'll find yourself less annoyed at every meeting request or instant message you get.  |
|
The Case For Video Games as an Olympic Sport
August 8th, 2012Top StoryThe Case For Video Games as an Olympic SportBy Stephen Totilo
Video games, perhaps, should have had a place in the ongoing London Summer Games of the XXX Olympiad. Not surprisingly, I've been able to find several video game experts who agree, though all do not and some make good cases against. If shooting is a sport…The case for video games is that they are, for starters, popular competitions. They're competed in around the world more broadly than, say the non-Olympic sport American Football. And while they may not involve running fast, jumping high, or even that much sweating, the one-on-one virtual combat of Street Fighter or the simulated clash of futuristic armies in StarCraft require a dexterity with a fighting stick or mouse that certainly exceed the muscular dexterity needed for the non-Olympic sport of competitive eating but maybe, possibly as much as is needed for the Olympic sport of competitive shooting. "In my eyes, there's no doubt that digital gaming will at some point be part of the Olympics," top StarCraft player Sean "Day 9" Plott told me. "Video gaming is a full medium on its own, with developers exploring new mechanics and players forming vibrant communities." StarCraft gamer Sean Plott: "In my eyes, there's no doubt that digital gaming will at some point be part of the Olympics" "There can be no serious question that fighting games are a superior gauge of human competitive excellence compared to, say, the Biathlon," fighting game expert Seth Killian, formerly of Capcom and now at Sony, told me. "It's easy to get sidetracked by semantic questions about what is or is not a sport, but compared against many, many existing events, fighting games are more competitive by a thousand times, more nuanced, more egalitarian, and a better overall reflection of mental and physical achievement." The International Olympic Committee chooses which sports they will recognize as sports and, among those, chooses which will be included in an Olympic programme. They have standards, standards that have gotten tennis or rugby added and baseball and softball, most recently, dropped from competition in the Summer Games. The official criteria, according to the IOC:
Games have that international part down. Angry Birds is popular in more than 60 countries. Street Fighter is big in America, Japan and Europe. Counter-Strike is played competitively around the world. Games don't have the "international federation" part down. There is no sanctioning body and, while there are leagues such as Major League Gaming the games themselves are owned by private companies, which is not a complication with, say, the game of competitive 100-meter sprinting or the game of javelin-hurling. "Our fans are already world champion bird flingers and pig poppers," Sini Matikainen, a spokesperson for Angry Birds development studio Rovio said. "So of course we would love to see them battle it out on the global stage!" The chess precedentVideo games seem like an odd fit for the Olympics, but for much of the last century, chess backers have lobbied to get that globally-popular game included in an Olympic programme. Chess has the international federation and the decades of high-level competition that video games lack. It doesn't, however, require as much physical skill. It's a brain game. David Jarrett, former Chess Federation director, in 2009: "To broaden the appeal, we suggest that Mind sports are added to the [Winter Games] programme." "Fighting games obviously have a huge mental component," Killian said, referencing the Street Fighters and Mortal Kombats of the world, "but while a game like chess is almost purely a mental endeavor, nearly every fighting game competition is decided by truly amazing physical execution as well, on par with the kind of technical excellence you see reflected in events like Olympic archery." But get this: chess is a recognized sport by the International Olympic Committee. It achieved that status in the late 90's during the XXVIIth Olympiad (at a time when the Tug of War International Federation was granted only provisional recognition, believe it or not). Chess simply hasn't been added to an Olympic programme by the IOC, earning explicit rejection as recently as 2002, alongside bowling, water skiing, billiards, and roller sports. In 2009, David Jarrett, then the executive director of the World Chess Federation, made a pitch at the Olympic Congress event in Copenhagen to get chess and other "mind games" added to the Winter Games:
The Mind Games proposal hasn't been accepted by the IOC, but if it did, the Winter Games would suddenly seem like a very good home for some video games. Fundamental ProblemsI first tried my video-games-as-Olympics idea on Frank Lantz, one of the smartest game designers I know and one of the only ones in earshot when I got this brainstorm during a recent event at New York's Hayden Planetarium (we were attending an event celebrating innovators and dreamers, sponsored by Kotaku sister site Gizmodo). I argued for Angry Birds as an Olympic sport, saying it surely had many of the qualities of archery. Angry Birds didn't have the right density, Lantz replied. By "density," he meant the number of possible outcomes, the complexity of variables. It felt, to him, as if it would be too finite, that people would ascend some curve of mastery and then all peak, that accomplishment could stall. This wasn't necessarily true for all video games. The Chess-like StarCraft, I thought, might have enough density. But in an e-mail a couple of weeks later, he dismissed that one as well. "Olympic sports need to be highly physical," he said. "Despite the amazing degree of technical skill it requires, StarCraft isstill essentially a strategy game. I don't think it would ever make sense in the Olympics." I should note that Lantz loves StarCraft; he's no enemy of the game. "If you are interested in digital games in the Olympics," he continued, "I would look at things like Fencing, which incorporate digital sensing technology into a physical game to create a fascinating, futuristic hybrid." Spy Party designer Chris Hecker: "I don't think any of the popular competitive games are very spectatable right now for non-experts." Chris Hecker, designer of the one-on-one spy-vs-sniper one-shot competitive game Spy Party is also skeptical. "I think, even though it's not really mentioned explicitly, 'spectatability' is a huge part of what makes a sport universally interesting," he said. "I don't think any of the popular competitive games are very spectatable right now for non-experts. As some proof of this claim, Frank Lantz is writing a series on how to spectate StarCraft 2 on Even StarCraft pro Sean Plott, who does want video gaming in the Olympics, sees some big hurdles. These Games only happen every four years, he observed, but how many video games even stand that test of time? "Only two or three gaming titles have ever had players for more than 10 years, so which title can we choose from?" he said. "I think the answer lies in competitive genres instead of titles… I'd imagine that the Olympics could have an RTS, FPS, and Fighting Game category that would stay up to date as games are patched or sequels are released." That sounds… complicated. The status of Chess as essentially an Olympics bridesmaid but never a bride may encourage or discourage those who would like to see video games make it as an Olympic sport. Maybe there is a road that brings Street Fighter into the same Olympic venues as that sport that has horses jumping over obstacles and the one where the person hurls the disc. Maybe a Street Fighter VII player will some day be going for gold. Or maybe, as one Kotaku reader put it, video games should just have their own Olympics. Or maybe, just maybe, Spy Party's Hecker argues, the Olympics just aren't for video games because video games have a special destiny of their own. "The Olympics is more about human "There's room in the world for lots of different kinds of things, and eventually games will figure out where they live in the space of art and entertainment and sports. I'd rather let that happen naturally as we get more of a clue about how to design emotionally compelling games, than try to beg our way into one group's or the other's already-existing structure." (Top photo originally by Anja Niedringhaus, AP; Xbox controller added to sprinter Usain Bolt's hand by Luke Plunkett)  |
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)