Global Redirective Practices: an online workshop for a client

442 views
390 views

Published on

This slidedeck is an exhaustive report consisting of research in sociological literature, user research in focus groups, competitive analysis of similar tools, and, designing for a client with no money and no technical ability.

[Because this was a presentation, much of the information is supplied by the presenter. Critical information of the presentation has been added to the slide deck as 'Notes:']

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
442
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Global Redirective Practices: an online workshop for a client

  1. 1. - Designing a redirective workshop for redirective designers. i561 - Team 2. Adam Williams, Eugene Chang, Kshitiz Anand, Sean Connolly
  2. 2. Big Picture From the highest perspective, in the grandest terms, our client asked us to design an online workshop for his new course - and new discipline - of global redirective practices. http://www.flickr.com/photos/chelmsfordpubliclibrary/2210233729/
  3. 3. The Request The workshop to be designed, should be “an electronic facility to be created in order to encourage graduate research students world-wide to tell each other about their projects, exchange information, make their research available to their peers, share problems, issue invitations to comment or collaborate.” - Tony Fry 2008
  4. 4. The Request Note: The entire ‘workshop’ desired is described in experiential terms.
  5. 5. Technical Features Requested Our client was proactive and delivered the following request for features: User Profiles Forums Login / Registration Moderator Controls Ability to Scale Chat http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakob/83393263/
  6. 6. Technical Features Requested Our client was proactive and delivered the following request for features: User Profiles Forums Login / Registration Moderator Controls Ability to Scale Chat But note: do the above specs really deliver an ‘environment that encourages users to exchange information, share information, and collaborate?’ Or do the above just make it technically possible? http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakob/83393263/
  7. 7. Technical Features Requested Given the skillset of our team, we could build such a workshop from scratch, appropriate and integrate a variety of available tools, or, grab a fully developed online tool that delivers this function. The question is, which approach? And, why? http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakob/83393263/
  8. 8. The design question When many viable options are available; how do we decide which option most completely satisfies our particular client, at this particular time, with these particular immediate needs, and this particular vision for the future?
  9. 9. The design question When many viable options are available; how do we decide which option most completely satisfies our particular client, at this particular time, with these particular immediate needs, and this particular vision for the future? Note: our particular client has no technical ability – not to implement, develop, or upgrade – and has no staff, and, no money.
  10. 10. Collaborative Tools For there is no dominant online collaborative tool to suit this purpose. No iPod No Microsoft Word No Google Search No Facebook
  11. 11. Online Communities Highly successful communities exist. Yet technically similar communities fail to gain traction. “At the time of this conference, the tendency of those involved in building graphical virtual worlds is to create visually compelling worlds that look good, but do a poor job of fostering social interaction. Many of these systems have more in common with lonely museums than with the vibrant communities they set out to create.” (Kollock 1997)
  12. 12. Design Principles for Online Communities Peter Kollock et al,1997 “The key challenges the Internet community will face in the future are not technological, but rather sociological… This is not to diminish the difficulties of creating new technologies, but rather to emphasize that even these tasks will pale besides the problems of facilitating and encouraging successful online interaction and online communities.”
  13. 13. Design Principles of Cooperation between individuals “If information about individuals and their behavior is shared among the group, this encourages the development of reputations, which can be a vital source of social information and control (institutional memory).” (Kollock 1997)
  14. 14. Design Principles of Cooperation between individuals “If information about individuals and their behavior is shared among the group, this encourages the development of reputations, which can be a vital source of social information and control (institutional memory).” (Kollock 1997) Note: So, instead of approaching this project with its technical needs in mind, we approached from a more sociological / psychological direction.
  15. 15. Design Principles of Cooperation between individuals EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION (Axelrod 1984) 1ST - Must be the potential that interacting individuals will meet again 2ND - Individuals must be able to identify each other 3RD - Have information about how the others have behaved till now
  16. 16. Design Principles of Successful Communities GOVERNING THE COMMONS (Ostrom 1990) 1ST - Group identity is clearly defined 2ND - Most individuals in community can participate in modifying rules 3RD - The right of individuals to create new rules is respected 4TH - The members particpate in moderating group behaviors 5TH - A graduated system of sanctions are used 6TH - Focus community on a particular interest group 7TH - Confront members with a specific crisis to build union
  17. 17. Encouraging Positive Actions from the Using Audience (Kelly, Sung & Farnham 2002) “There are 3 major questions facing designers of on-line communities: how to get users to behave well, how to get users to contribute quality content, and how to get users to return and contribute on an ongoing basis”
  18. 18. Encouraging Positive and Return Interactions from the Audience “While providing most of the standard services one expects from an on-line community (such as discussion forums, homepage building, chat, user reviews, etc) these [highly successful] sites feature custom tools that have contributed greatly to the success of the sites in a largely un-moderated capacity. These tools include a built-in member status/reputation system, a navigable member contribution history, tracking tools for members usually only available to moderators… and a popularity ranking system for all member-contributed lesson material.”
  19. 19. Repurposing Data Collection to promote sustainable community USE DATA THAT ENCOURAGES PROPER PROTOCOL “Community data is used to encourage its users to act in accordance with accepted community norms, to make the community environment self-policing, and to correctly identify continually deviant users.” Member identity: members are asked for real first & last name Identity in Context: the absence of role playing and anonymity within the community is a hugely important factor in creating accountability, real social consciousness, and behavioral norms. User Control of Resources: invested members tend to protect, promote, and update their specific contributed resources in the community, look for feedback, and ensure that the experience for their public audience is a rewarding one
  20. 20. Status Metrics “Community data is fed back into the site for three distinct purposes: to increase social consciousness, to encourage and reward user participation, and to increase the navigability of the site.” (Sung, Kelly, Farnham 2002)
  21. 21. Status Metrics – outcomes WITH STATUS METRICS Members become aware of what counts as positive contribution Low level point-rewards encourage newcomer use and return High level point rewards encourage valuable user added content Influence and prestige accord to most valued members Since sites pays no one, sites take pains to let users know where and how their content is being appreciated
  22. 22. Status Metrics – outcomes WITH STATUS METRICS Status metrics emerged as an entry point for new user engagement Proper users add more content because the see how others value viewpoint Users provide answers because it is “their job” not because of personal connection to the inquirers. Metrics allow multiple viewpoints of same types of data, and have thus become major facets of the emergent navigation scheme of users.
  23. 23. Focus Group discussion on Online Collaborative work spaces 7 Graduate students Experience in online collaboration
  24. 24. Online Collaborative work spaces - Dislikes No standard method of tool use No standard performance measure Being forced to participate No useful profile information Real interaction has social cues and allows for informal interaction Asynchronous content management
  25. 25. Online Collaborative work spaces - Likes Searching through time (Eg Google Groups) Organization of threads Update emails / RSS Usage history User has a role in the process Rate quality of posts Quantity of posts
  26. 26. Online Collaborative work spaces - Likes Provides a common ground for discussion Contextual relativity – tools by need, finding contextually appropriate solutions. Having a task to perform Easy access Visible presentation of the dialogue Sticky like (having a closure to a discussion, summarizing it and putting in the lifecycle of the discussions.)
  27. 27. Comparative Analysis of Online Collaborative Tools Note: After our research into the literature and after focus group with appropriate high-level students in the niche field of question, we now felt we were finally able to look into the available tools and begin to assess what might fit our client’s needs. So did a competitive analysis of… Well, everything.
  28. 28. Google Groups
  29. 29. Joomla
  30. 30. Wordpress
  31. 31. Blogger
  32. 32. Media WIKI
  33. 33. phpBB
  34. 34. IRC
  35. 35. AIM
  36. 36. Basecamp
  37. 37. Twitter
  38. 38. Ning
  39. 39. Facebook
  40. 40. List-serves
  41. 41. Drupal
  42. 42. Comparing the collected online tools After collecting 39 different online social tools, and, distilling those into 19 exemplar tools, we matched those 19 tools up against the pre-determined criteria that we extracted from both the research and the focus group and the needs of our client. The number of current online research tools that addressed the needs of this collaborative workshop was…
  43. 43. None
  44. 44. Comparing the collected online tools Note: No tool currently available on the web satisfied all the wishes and requirements of our focus group and research. We take inspiration from this and understand that there is a market opportunity for a concept that does accomplish this.
  45. 45. Comparing the collected online tools [Note:] However, a concept will not suffice in this project. An additional constraint for our team is that our particular client at this particular time needs a working prototype to move forward with his endeavor. We have to make a choice to satisfy his short term needs, but, to fully satisfy his desires, it is also incumbent upon us to provide our client with a vision for the long term, so that he can make his own decisions over time as the technology tends to improve and to achieve the full collaborative functionality he desires for his students, his discipline, and his class.
  46. 46. Comparing the collected online tools [Note:] Because we realize that the future direction of our client’s vision will also impact what is the proper technology and support he needs now, it was important for us to manifest that future vision - that potential future artifact that can unify all the requirements of a rich collaborative artifact - and utilize that as an additional constraint to the more precisely define what is the proper technology to deliver to our client in the now. These were our insights into defining that future object.
  47. 47. Collaborative Tool Requirements To build collaboration, one must first have community Primary function is an online collaboration tool Must encourage coherent, asynchronous debate Must encourage a ‘sticky’ final result of debate Data collection of use must be reflected back to the audience
  48. 48. Collaborative Tool Requirements Note: 1)  The research shows that even real world collaboration is first built on trust and that trust is the result of knowing about your potential collaborators 2) The first requirement is that the tools primary function is that it is a tool for online collaboration. Of all the tools studied, none seem to be primarily built just for fostering a collaborative environment. Even the best tools are really project management tools, focused on delivery and timetables versus pure collaboration, or, they are social networks with forum pages, or, content management systems appropriated into a method of collecting content. The artifact itself can be PART of these larger systems, and, that is likely. But to encourage collaboration, the core of the artifact itself must be to encourage collaboration. Nothing else.
  49. 49. Collaborative Tool Requirements Note: If you notice, points 1, 3, and, 4 are reminiscent of a 1) a social network, 2) a forum, and 3) a wiki. And because some of the social networking communities out there are already so strong, we can focus on unifying these last two --
  50. 50. Concept Discussion Social

 Google

 Forums
 Blogs
 Wikis
 Networks
 Docs
 Fikis
 Legend
 Increasing
order
of
ability
to
change

 content
on
online
collabora>on
tools

  51. 51. Fiki Brainstorming
  52. 52. Fiki Concept
  53. 53. Fiki facets breakdown FIKI The union of a "forum" and a "wiki", a Fiki is online collaborative tool that encourages the nonlinear flexibility of collective debate and brainstorming while simultaneously tracking, developing, and organizing a temporally 'final' representation of the aggregate debate.
  54. 54. Fiki facets breakdown NONLINEAR FLEXIBILITY Design is not always logical. A collaborative tool that encourages nonlinear flexibility is one that accepts, tracks, tags, and coherently stores the wandering, chaotic thoughts that enable the discovery of new insight and creation of new artifacts.
  55. 55. Fiki facets breakdown TEMPORAL FINAL There is no final 'answer' to any Fiki debates. However, there is at all times ("temporally") a coherent representation of the aggregated, valuated pieces-of-debate that can be presented as a linear fashion to the participating audience.
  56. 56. Fiki facets breakdown VALUATED In the Fiki, "valuated" refers to the ability of the community to choose for itself that which is expressed in the final temporal representation of any debate. The community ranks highly those pieces-of-debate which it believes most fully accords with its own values and beliefs. Individuals, too; receive rankings from their peers, their activities, and their contributions to the community
  57. 57. Fiki facets breakdown PIECES-OF-DEBATE Any text added to the community through debate may be parsed into smaller pieces by any other users. Paragraphs may be parsed into sentences. Sentences may be parsed into phrases. Phrases may be parsed into words. Similarly, smaller pieces-of-debate may be refashioned into larger semantic structure. Both the micro and macro pieces may have their own individual identity and valuation, as well as the complex identity and valuation born of their union.
  58. 58. Fiki Concept
  59. 59. Three Additional Constraints for deployment No cost / low cost Community of technical developers Low technical requirement for the client
  60. 60. Potential Technology: Features and Assessments
  61. 61. Potential Technology: the winners
  62. 62. Technologies assessment Ease of Entry Ease of Moderation Collaboration Orientation Transience of Records
  63. 63. Technologies assessment – positioning graph
  64. 64. Technologies assessment – positioning graph
  65. 65. The Winner Ning
  66. 66. Deliverable Set up a mock Ning group ourselves Redefined the interface to make it a forum focused community Redefined the interface according to usability Still allow flexibility of the client Still allow flexibility of individual users.
  67. 67. Login Screen for network
  68. 68. Home Page Screen
  69. 69. Personal Page
  70. 70. Forum Page
  71. 71. Layered Discussions
  72. 72. Most Active Groups Screen
  73. 73. Individual Group Screen
  74. 74. Features Customization Interface
  75. 75. What do We Deliver? A list of the available technologies A list of the modern literature A strategic design vision for the future experience A working prototype for the client A working, functional prototype that is the best deliverable for this particular client, with these particular needs, at this particular time, and with this particular vision for the future
  76. 76. Global Redirective Practices Any questions?
  77. 77. APPENDIX A - LITERATURE REVIEW ON BUILDING VIRUTAL COMMUNITIES AND ON ONLINE COLLABORATION Kollock, P., University of California, Los Angeles. Design Principles for Online Communities 1996 Kelly, S., Sung, C., & Farnham S. (2002). Designing for Improved Social Responsibility and Content in 
 On-Line Communities. In Proceedings of CHI 2002, Minneapolis, April 2002. Jensen, C., Davis, J., & Farnham, S. (2002). Finding Others Online: Reputation Systems for Social Online Spaces. In Proceedings of CHI 2002, Minneapolis, April 2002. Farnham, S. (2002). Predicting Active Participation in MSN Communities. Its All in the Conversation. Microsoft Technical Report MSR-TR-2002-36. Davis, J., Farnham, S., Jensen, C. (2002). Decreasing Online Bad Behavior. In Extended Abstracts of CHI 2002, Minneapolis, April 2002. Davis, J. P. (2002). The experience of bad behavior in online social spaces: A survey of online users. Internal paper. Swinth, K., Farnham, S., & Davis, J. (2002). Sharing Personal Information in Online Community Member Profiles. Internal paper. Farnham, S. D., Chesley, H. McGhee, D., & Kawal, R. (2000). Structured On-line Interactions: Improving the Decision-making of Small Discussion Groups. In Proceedings of CSCW 2000, Philadelphia, December.
  78. 78. APPENDIX A - LITERATURE REVIEW ON BUILDING VIRUTAL COMMUNITIES AND ON ONLINE COLLABORATION Davis, J. P., Zaner, M., Farnham, S., Marcjan, C., & McCarthy, B. P. (2002). Wireless brainstorming:
 Overcoming status effects in small group decisions. Paper submitted to journal Computers in 
 Human Interaction. Grudin, J., Tallarico, S, and Counts, S. (2005). As Technophobia Disappears: Implications for Design. 
 Group 2005. Farnham, S., & Turski, A. (2002) Social Network Project: Applications for Online Communication and
 Information Navigation. Internal paper. Farnham, S. (2002). Visualizing Discourse Architectures with Automatically Generated Person-Centric
 Social Networks Paper presented at CHI Workshop 2002: Discource Architectures. Farnham, S. D., Chesley, H. McGhee, D., & Kawal, R. Structured On-line Interactions: Improving the 
 Decision-making of Small Discussion Groups. In Proceedings of CSCW 2000, Philadelphia, December 2000. Jensen, C., Farnham, S., Drucker, S., & Kollock, P. The Effect of Communication Modality on Cooperation
 in Online Environments. In Proceedings of CHI 2000, The Hague, Netherlands March 2000. Smith, M., Farnham, S., & Drucker S. The Social Life of Small Graphical Chat Spaces. In Proceedings
 of CHI 2000, The Hague, Netherlands March 2000.
  79. 79. APPENDIX A - LITERATURE REVIEW ON BUILDING VIRUTAL COMMUNITIES AND ON ONLINE COLLABORATION White, S, Gupta, A., Grudin, J., Chesley, H., Kimberly, G., Sanocki, E. Evolving Use of a System for
 Education at a Distance. 1999 Kollock, P., Smith, M., University of California, Los Angeles. What Do People Do in Virtual Worlds? An 
 Anlalysis of V-Chat Log File Data 1998 Kollock, P., Smith, M., University of California, Los Angeles. Managing the Virtual Commons: Cooperation
 and Conflict in Computer Communities 1996 Eighmey, J., & McCord L. (1998). Adding value in the information age: Uses and gratifications of sites
 on the world-wide web. Journal of Business Research, 41(3), 187-194. Rafaeli, S. (1986). The electronic bulletin board: A computer-driven mass medium. Computers an
 d the Social Sciences, 2 Braina, M. (2001, August). The uses and gratifications of the Internet among African American college
 students. Paper presented to the Minorities and Communication Division, Association for Education
 in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC. Angleman, S. (2000, December). Uses and gratifications and Internet profiles: A factor analysis. Is I
 nternet use and travel to cyberspace reinforced by unrealized gratifications? Paper presented to the 
 Western Science Social Association 2001 Conference

×