Ever notice that, today, when you ask an email correspondent for their contact information (those who don't include it in their e-signature), what one gets is different than a few years ago.
Today, one gets:
- one or more email addresses,
- cell phone #,
- Twitter handle,
- various URL's to information on the web (usually LinkedIn, Facebook, the person's blog/tumblr, et al.); and
What one doesn't get:
- a physical address
- IM name
- landline phone #
- Service providers (e.g., lawyers, accountants, consultants), who, no surprise, give reams of contact information
- Executives in large companies with executive assistants (who, increasingly and humorously in many cases, have their own elaborate e-signatures)
- Folks outside the tech/media startup world
Interesting how address book technology hasn't kept up. In the version of Outlook I use, there's no field for one's Twitter handle (one can still enter one's IM address/name), only space for one "web site", and no recognition in any of the "database fields" of the rise of social networks as a part of one's identity and "address".
And, in typical MSFT style, none of the fields is editable by the user. In a play on WYSIWYG, I call it WMWIWYG ("What Microsoft Wants Is What You Get").