SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Kids have always been a little difficult.
Technology may have made things worse, as the young tend to know more about tech than their parents do.
They know, for example, how to ignore mom and dad and do whatever they like.
Nick Herbert found this a touch frustrating.
Kids have a habit of simply not replying to texts. Not because they're bad kids, but, well, they're doing something more interesting on the phone -- like playing a game.
So, as CBS News reports, Herbert conceived ReplyASAP. This is an app (currently available only on Android) that forces your child to address your texts.
By annoying the living hell out of them.
[...] Herbert insists that ReplyASAP is meant to be used only in emergencies. This isn't about annoying your kids all the time, however tempting that might be.
Indeed, he told me that it's not about forcing your child to reply. Instead, he said: "It is simply a means of getting an important message to the child, even when they have their phone on silent, and for the parent to know they have seen it."
[Ed Note - Updated Google Play link to correct a typo]
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 28 2017, @08:11PM (2 children)
Android has had priority alert implementations for a while. You set your phone in do-not-disturb, and set specific people who can get through.
As far as making your kids see your message: lock the screen, flash the screen, buzz the vibration on a specific pattern, potentially emit a loud sound after a while. Repeat automatically until the kids send you a message.
If you do that during school and they get yelled at, you get sent to the principal.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Monday August 28 2017, @08:45PM (1 child)
That sounds precisely "not good enough".
Most of the time I want my messages to respect the D-N-D settings. If my wife has her phone set to silent because she's in a meeting; I don't want a random 'hey, luv ya' getting past that. What I want is to be able to prefix my message with say 'urgent:' or 'interrupt:' and then, and ONLY then, have the message pass the dnd settings. (Also keep the idea of being able to set specific people who can get through -- so *I* have to say 'interrupt' AND they have 'permit interrupts' from me before it breaks DND settings.) Likewise with my kids, I don't want 99.9% of our messages sent to them in class to break dnd...I can't really think of a message I'd need to break through to them during class. Even if someone died, I'd just have them paged through the office. But right after school for example, if they're hanging out and chatting with friends because we usually pick them up half an hour later, and they haven't taken their phone off DND yet, and the neighbor is picking them up a bit earlier then usual and I want them to get that message so the neighbor doing me a favor doesn't have to wait around for 30 minutes before my kids even think they should start heading out to look for us -- then I'd like to push that message and just that through DND, because I know they're out of school and just haven't looked at their phone yet. This sort of thing happens pretty often.
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:35AM
I generally agree with the sanctioned "break DnD" approach. My take is: text (SMS) is FYI not requiring a response or confirmation. Phone call is for questions and guaranteed delivery. Think UDP and TCP.
> if someone died, I'd just have them paged through the office.
The apropriate approach would be a proper face to face conversation. Yes, it is not urgent. A person in a hospital, on other hand, might be, but still a phone call would be my choice. The emotional feedback from my child, if any, is important to receive.
> [...] the neighbor is picking them up a bit earlier [...] my kids [...] just haven't looked at their phone yet.
Again, I'm just sharing my approach here, not claiming to be the definitive guide. And I'm talking 12+ y.o. kids. I'd call them (each of them!) and get confirmation they understood and agreed. Skipping the second part is easy but unfair. What if some kid doesn't want to go home then and opt for the bus instead? Neither the neighbour should wait nor the kid should feel guilty. If I want to mandate the returning hour that's a reason for a dialogue. And last, if nobody picked the call (a single one), I'd shoot a text FYI. If they want to argue about it it's their initiative now. In any case I'd warn the neighbour to wait no longer than 5 min, after it is a favor and I don't want to abuse their time. If any kid didn't show in time, well, bus/walk time for them. Makes them bear the consequences for their behavior.