Online chatrooms seem somewhat passé now, and instant messaging is decidedly mainstream, at least for leisure use. But the number of companies using similar methods to communicate with customers remains stubbornly low.

Those which do try it generally do a pretty abysmal job. One trend seems to be to create a ‘virtual assistant’ – basically a front-end for a search engine that attempts to answer questions typed in plain English. The results aren’t usually very encouraging. Try asking Ikea’s Anna something. ‘How much is your cheapest sofabed?’ produces the following mine of information:

“We do our bit and you do yours to get high quality at low prices. Economically produced flat-pack designs, bought in bulk, keep costs down. So does leaving the planning and assembly to you. This means that together we can create a better everyday life for everyone!”

Nothing about a sofabed, and no prices. Rubbish. Still, if you click ‘turn sound on’, it does get read out by a non-Swedish sounding lady with a slight lisp.

Putting a real person on the other end of the keyboard seems as rare as ever. Strange really, as at first glance it looks like an obvious way to deal with simple queries quickly, and cope with more customers at once. Anyone who’s ever tried chatting in four or five instant messaging windows at once knows that’s much easier than holding four or five simultaneous phone calls.

When I think of internet-savvy companies willing to try new things, the Student Finance people doesn’t come anywhere near the top of my list. That’s why I was surprised to see an online chat option on its website.

I had a query about my years-old student loan, so I tried it. Sure – I had to wait about five minutes for someone to get to me, but as I didn’t have to hang on the phone listening to rubbish music, this was less annoying than usual. I carried on working while I waited, and when the chat window started flashing I punched in my query.

It worked pretty well. I got them to change my registered address and send out some previous statements. It was pretty efficient, and certainly less hassle than hanging on the phone.

I can see that there are still loads of things that would stop people using this. While I’m quite used to chatting online, there are many people who wouldn’t be comfortable with it. And had I taken a slightly more cynical approach to security, I might’ve resisted handing over my personal details in a chat window.

But I did, and it worked. I wonder if any other companies that I’ve had painful call-centre experiences with in the past would like to refine the concept a bit. I’d definitely use it.

Once of my favourite websites is Threadless. It’s an online t-shirt shop. It’s a thriving online community. And – I imagine – it makes money too.

I live in t-shirts, and I love unusual ones, so I’ll really go out of my way to find them. I stumbled across Threadless about a year ago after a tip-off from my sister, and it’s brilliant.

Much like CafePress.com, anyone can submit a t-shirt design to be printed. But on Threadless, the community really counts, because votes and comments help decide which t-shirts get printed. Ok, so like the FAQ says, ultimately it’s their call, but they’d be stupid not to listen to what their members are saying.

The site is criminally easy to use. You can see every single design, but because each shirt is printed in limited numbers, it’s better to see what’s available at a glance. The stock chart does just that. All the available t-shirts, on one page. It’s simple, but it works very well.

They keep people coming back by letting members blog and chat in forums. And they create innovative competitions that get the whole community involved.

None of it is revolutionary, but it’s a very good example of how to bring together a few elements of ‘Web 2.0’ to create something that people really identify with. Give it a go; their shipping charges to the UK are pretty reasonable too.

Consistency’s important when it comes to writing for the web. After all, you want your readers to know what you’re talking about. And that means not confusing them by giving one thing several different names.

This was the central premise of a conversation I had last week. And it was absolutely right – to a point. You don’t want to confuse the reader. So if something has a name, you stick to it.

But my view is that there’s a balance to be struck here. When you write for the web, you tend to write in a conversational style. You write like you speak.

Nobody uses the same words over and over again in conversation. It’s boring, and it sounds silly – like talking in a monotone. So any ‘conversational’ copy with the same lack of variety just isn’t going to sound right.

If you truly want to engage the reader, your copy needs to stand up and grab their attention. To do that, variety is vital; without it, you’ll sound stilted and contrived. Almost like a machine wrote the text for you. And that’s not going to impress anyone.