Successfully reported this slideshow.

Global Redirective Practices


Published on

Research on online collaboration tools.

Published in: Design, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Global Redirective Practices

  1. 1. Global Redirective Practices Workshop <ul><li>i561 - Adam Williams, Eugene Chang, Kshitiz Anand, Sean Connolly </li></ul>-Designing a collaborative workshop for redirective designers. Adam Williams, Eugene Chang, Kshitiz Anand, Sean Connolly School of Informatics, Indiana University
  2. 2. 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. Big Picture
  3. 3. 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 The Request
  4. 4. Our client was proactive and delivered the following request for features: User Profiles Forums Login / Registration Moderator Controls Ability to Scale Chat Technical Features Requested
  5. 5. 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? The design question
  6. 6. There is no dominant online collaborative tool. No iPod No Microsoft Word No Google Search No Facebook Collaborative Tools
  7. 7. 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) Online Communities
  8. 8. 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 .” Design Principles for Online Communities
  9. 9. “ 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) Design Principles of Cooperation between individuals
  10. 10. EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION (Axelrod 1984) 1 ST - Must be the potential that interacting individuals will meet again 2 ND - Individuals must be able to identify each other 3 RD - Have information about how the others have behaved till now Design Principles of Cooperation between individuals
  11. 11. GOVERNING THE COMMONS (Ostrom 1990) 1 ST - Group identity is clearly defined 2 ND - Most individuals in community can participate in modifying rules 3 RD - The right of individuals to create new rules is respected 4 TH - The members particpate in moderating group behaviors 5 TH - A graduated system of sanctions are used 6 TH - Focus community on a particular interest group 7 TH - Confront members with a specific crisis to build union Design Principles of Successful Communities
  12. 12. (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” Encouraging Positive Actions from the Using Audience
  13. 13. “ 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.” Encouraging Positive and Return Interactions from the Audience
  14. 14. 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 Repurposing Data Collection to promote sustainable community
  15. 15. “ 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) Status Metrics
  16. 16. 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 Status Metrics – outcomes
  17. 17. 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. Status Metrics – outcomes
  18. 18. Focus Group discussion on Online Collaborative work spaces 7 Graduate students Experience in online collaboration
  19. 19. <ul><li>No standard method of tool use </li></ul><ul><li>No standard performance measure </li></ul><ul><li>Being forced to participate </li></ul><ul><li>No useful profile information </li></ul><ul><li>Real interaction has social cues and allows for informal interaction </li></ul><ul><li>Asynchronous content management </li></ul>Online Collaborative work spaces - Dislikes
  20. 20. <ul><li>Searching through time (Eg Google Groups) </li></ul><ul><li>Organization of threads </li></ul><ul><li>Update emails / RSS </li></ul><ul><li>Usage history </li></ul><ul><li>User has a role in the process </li></ul><ul><li>Rate quality of posts </li></ul><ul><li>Quantity of posts </li></ul>Online Collaborative work spaces - Likes
  21. 21. 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.) Online Collaborative work spaces - Likes
  22. 22. Comparative Analysis of Online Collaborative Tools 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 we went out into the field and we found out the different collaborating platforms that exist in the market today.
  23. 23. Google Groups
  24. 24. Joomla
  25. 25. Wordpress
  26. 26. Blogger
  27. 27. Media WIKI
  28. 28. phpBB
  29. 29. IRC
  30. 30. AIM
  31. 31. Basecamp
  32. 32. Twitter
  33. 33. Ning
  34. 34. Facebook
  35. 35. List-serves
  36. 36. Drupal
  37. 37. After collecting what we could find, we matched it up against the pre-determined criteria that we extracted from both the research and the focus group. The current online tool that turned out perfect was – ? Comparing the collected online tools
  38. 38. None
  39. 39. 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 Collaborative Tool Requirements
  40. 40. Concept Discussion Wikis Forums Fikis Google Docs Blogs Social Networks Increasing order of ability to change content on online collaboration tools Legend
  41. 41. Fiki Brainstorming
  42. 42. Fiki Concept
  43. 43. Fiki facets breakdown FIKI The union of a &quot;forum&quot; and a &quot;wiki&quot;, 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.
  44. 44. 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. Fiki facets breakdown
  45. 45. TEMPORAL FINAL There is no final 'answer' to any Fiki debates. However, there is at all times (&quot;temporally&quot;) a coherent representation of the aggregated, valuated pieces-of-debate that can be presented as a linear fashion to the participating audience. Fiki facets breakdown
  46. 46. Fiki facets breakdown VALUATED In the Fiki, &quot;valuated&quot; 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
  47. 47. 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.
  48. 48. Fiki Concept
  49. 49. No cost / low cost Community of technical developers Low technical requirement for the client Three Additional Constraints for deployment
  50. 50. Potential Technology: Features and Assessments
  51. 51. Potential Technology: the winners
  52. 52. Ease of Entry Ease of Moderation Collaboration Orientation Transience of Records Technologies assessment
  53. 53. Technologies assessment – positioning graph
  54. 54. Technologies assessment – positioning graph
  55. 55. The Winner
  56. 56. 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. Deliverable
  57. 57. Login Screen for network
  58. 58. Home Page Screen
  59. 59. Personal Page
  60. 60. Forum Page
  61. 61. Layered Discussions
  62. 62. Most Active Groups Screen
  63. 63. Individual Group Screen
  64. 64. Features Customization Interface
  65. 65. What does Ning Deliver? So, while we were not delivering anything new to the client, the decision to use Ning, was a well thought about. It took into considerations factors a) Feasibility b) Implementation c) Technical Competency d) Maintenance
  66. 66. 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
  67. 67. Global Redirective Practices Thank You.
  68. 68. ON BUILDING VIRUTAL COMMUNITIES AND ON ONLINE COLLABORATION <ul><li>Kollock, P., University of California, Los Angeles. Design Principles for Online Communities 1996 </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Jensen, C., Davis, J., & Farnham, S. (2002). Finding Others Online: Reputation Systems for Social </li></ul><ul><li>Online Spaces. In Proceedings of CHI 2002, Minneapolis, April 2002. </li></ul><ul><li>Farnham, S. (2002). Predicting Active Participation in MSN Communities. Its All in the Conversation. </li></ul><ul><li>Microsoft Technical Report MSR-TR-2002-36. </li></ul><ul><li>Davis, J., Farnham, S., Jensen, C. (2002). Decreasing Online Bad Behavior. In Extended Abstracts of </li></ul><ul><li>CHI 2002, Minneapolis, April 2002. </li></ul><ul><li>Davis, J. P. (2002). The experience of bad behavior in online social spaces: A survey of online users. </li></ul><ul><li>Internal paper. </li></ul><ul><li>Swinth, K., Farnham, S., & Davis, J. (2002). Sharing Personal Information in Online Community Member </li></ul><ul><li>Profiles. Internal paper. </li></ul><ul><li>Farnham, S. D., Chesley, H. McGhee, D., & Kawal, R. (2000). Structured On-line Interactions: Improving </li></ul><ul><li>the Decision-making of Small Discussion Groups. In Proceedings of CSCW 2000, Philadelphia, December. </li></ul>APPENDIX A – LITERATURE REVIEW
  69. 69. ON BUILDING VIRUTAL COMMUNITIES AND ON ONLINE COLLABORATION <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Grudin, J., Tallarico, S, and Counts, S. (2005). As Technophobia Disappears: Implications for Design. Group 2005. </li></ul><ul><li>Farnham, S., & Turski, A. (2002) Social Network Project: Applications for Online Communication and Information Navigation. Internal paper. </li></ul><ul><li>Farnham, S. (2002). Visualizing Discourse Architectures with Automatically Generated Person-Centric Social Networks Paper presented at CHI Workshop 2002: Discource Architectures. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Smith, M., Farnham, S., & Drucker S. The Social Life of Small Graphical Chat Spaces. In Proceedings of CHI 2000, The Hague, Netherlands March 2000. </li></ul>APPENDIX A – LITERATURE REVIEW
  70. 70. ON BUILDING VIRUTAL COMMUNITIES AND ON ONLINE COLLABORATION <ul><li>White, S, Gupta, A., Grudin, J., Chesley, H., Kimberly, G., Sanocki, E. Evolving Use of a System for Education at a Distance. 1999 </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>Kollock, P., Smith, M., University of California, Los Angeles. Managing the Virtual Commons: Cooperation and Conflict in Computer Communities 1996 </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Rafaeli, S. (1986). The electronic bulletin board: A computer-driven mass medium. Computers an d the Social Sciences, 2 </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Angleman, S. (2000, December). Uses and gratifications and Internet profiles: A factor analysis. Is internet use and travel to cyberspace reinforced by unrealized gratifications? Paper presented to the Western Science Social Association 2001 Conference </li></ul>APPENDIX A – LITERATURE REVIEW