In Erving Goffman‘s legendary book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, he identifies three social norms for conversations (“facial engagements”): opening, maintaining, and leave-taking aka ending the conversation. Instant messaging is great for openings (“Accept this message?” and the little ping) and maintaining (the open window, the noises), but is terrible about leave-taking.
There is no good, standard way without seeming rude to end an IM session. In person or on the phone, we usually give some indication (“Bye!”) we’re ending the conversation, but with IM, that’s not typically the case, at least not with my conversations. Thus, by the end of the day, my screen (unless I am using Adium with its tabbed IM sessions) is littered with conversations that have simply trailed off long before. Just closing the window seems rude, especially if the person on the other end sees you have disengaged with them.
I’m not sure if a solution needs to be designed into IM clients, or whether after a few more years of IMing becoming mainstream, social patterns will work themselves out.
Because IM interactions aren’t designed to be fully-focused and the cost of initiation is so low, I don’t think it’s as critical to handle the leave-taking in software. In fact, because IM is only partially-focused, I don’t think the trailing nature is unusual (or even undesirable).
I lean toward viewing it as a social issue. Even the best IM conversation isn’t nearly as fully-focused as voice conversation (hence the need for the audio chirps as maintenance) but any necessary leave-taking cues can still be integraged into the flow of text (“gotta get back to work”) or made explicit (“ttyl”, “l8r”, “cya”). Goffman points out that exit cues obligate the other to acknowledge leave-taking “rights.” We just have to get better at incorporating IM-appropriate exit cues for those conversations that are move involved.
(BTW it’s “Behavior in Public Places,” not “Presentation of Self” that has the bit about Facial Engagements)
The Goffman reference is refreshing to see. As a guy who slogged through a Ph.D. in Sociology, Goffman was one of the most refreshing reads in the field. I’d say the IM point is accurate but, since little face work is involved in the communication, the “normative” implications of an abrupt exit are less important. After all, it is the normative implications of interaction for individuals in groups and places that Goffman put into focus. As Jeff said in his comment, a pattern will most likely develop over time.