Social Interaction Design: Social Software papers

I've just posted some new social interaction design downloads. I have a tendency to write too much, and combined with my tendency to leave unfinished what I've started, much of my work is still on the shelf. These three downloads draw from a book-length project in which I've been breaking apart what makes social software work. How it provides for "presence." How it facilitates communication, and interaction, and why those are not the same thing. I cover user experience, group dynamics, cultural phenomena, as well as design ideas, principles, and observations. As always, I'm eager to discuss!
All are drafts, and as are all drafts, prone to typos and some sloppiness in cutting and pasting...

• Social Interaction Design: Social Navigation 21M pdf This document, heavy on screenshots, examines principles of social interaction design. Using several social software sites as examples (Tribe.net, MySpace, Friendster, FastCupid personals, Flickr, and Typepad blogging), I explore the basic premise that in social software, all design choices inform user communication and interaction.



• Attributes of Online Social Systems pdf A brief 7 pager excerpted from an ongoing book project on what makes social software work. This pdf looks at just some of the social characteristics of social software sites.



• Culture, Groups, and Individuals pdf Also excerpted from a book project, this 27 page pdf breaks down the distinctions between individuals, groups, and culture overall on social software sites. The paper examines ways in which self-presentation and presence, proximity, rhythm and timing, and much more form the particular kinds of interactions seen among online communities.

Socially structured content

I've been working on a framework of socially structured content that would echo the efforts behind structured blogging. My big picture thinking was this: if the web is a medium of interaction in which the selection of information simultaneously creates navigation, online social interaction is informed by the structure of online content. A list of "members online now" produces different interactions and community habits than, say, "popular members" or "new members"... I've got a document in the works on this. Till it's done, though, here's a philosophical interlude I want to float:


One gets the sense, when pursuing a topic for a significant period of time, of sometimes finding one's own footprints, and of having returned to a starting place, though perhaps from a different road or port of entry. I would like to venture one of these moments now. In an effort to simplify the nature of online interactions and social software content structuring, it has occurred to me that the three truth conditions proposed by Jurgen Habermas might be of value. I used these over two decades ago when studying international relations theory. According to Habermas' theory of communicative action, we make claims to truth when we interact with one another. I've long suspected that these claims to truth become distorted and masked by mediated interactions (such as those we're discussing here). It would only follow that online interactions make an issue out of them; and that interpersonal communication, group talk, and communication forms from blogging to commenting, comment tracking, etc., all involve the addressing and clarification of these truth claims. All we need to assume is that in the case of member-produced content sites, members themselves become an issue, as well as what they say (post), for reading and interpreting content will involve the intentions, style, personality, etc of their author.
Habermas' three truth claims are facticity, sincerity, and normative authority. 1) There is the truth of what is said as it corresponds accurately to fact (it's raining, and so if I say it's not raining, I'm making a false claim.). 2) The sincerity of the speaker also makes a truth claim (because a person can say something true, and still not mean it, and thus make a false statement). 3) And normative authority is a truth claim (I may make a claim on you that I don't have the authority to make, and lacking authority, my claim is false).

Social software engages users in discovering and establishing these things about other members. As well as making them clear (or not) about oneself. It would follow that in all social software, and other technologies in which the primary mode of user interaction is communicative, participation is engaged in establishing the:

• truth of what a person says


• the truth of their intentions (the sincerity of their self presentation)


• and the normative rightfulness of their position

If the truth of a person's statements, of their sincerity (to us), and their position were indeed fundamentally obscured by the lack of face to face co presence, then it would make sense that all kinds of online social phenomena be explained by the importance of establishing a communicative foundation. We would want to know if a person really looked as they do in their pictures. Whether their friends and connections can validate them and who they seem to be (and claim to be). Whether their work and professional background correspond to their claims, in fact or on paper. A review of the member's posts and comments online might help uncover the person's particular stylistic choices, thus whether they are genuine, honest, witty, or perhaps flirtatious, jocular and not to be taken entirely seriously. And indeed we do see that the blogging phenomenon, social software services, and social networking sites, often deal with an author's credibility, expertise, appearance and attractiveness, social or professional network, expertise and relevance reflect concerns as to the validity of these truth claims. Social networks are meant to produce trust. Links, tags, technorati posts all build credibility. Testimonials and rankings argue for sincerity. And so on.
I don't want to suggest that the only thing driving online interaction is the matter of truth. Certainly all manner of play and pleasure occur online also. And yet, it is possible that only when the "truth" claims have been dealt with, either through validation, or through exemption, does play occur. A site must protect privacy, maintain anonymity of members, and remove all connections to the "actual" member behind the camera before members will expose themselves: their sincerity is rendered irrelevant, and the site is organized to keep it so. And so on.

Cognitive maps and tags: an full scale map of language?

An interesting range of perspectives here in the article on tags as cognitive maps as well as in the comments posted to the article. One of the themes that stands out in the comments is the importance of seeing tags as a social phenomenon. While the cognitive or semantic model of tagging is a good description of how one mind might produce tag associations, even online there's a social dimension to tagging cultures.
Tagging really is a good example of a dynamic system, a social system, even. As some comments note, we update our tags as we find others that are more useful/accurate/popular. So the tagging process involves 1) association and submission 2) cultural context 3) review, update, resubmit.
Tagging and tag folksonomies should each demonstrate a tendency, a refinement and closing in on a vernacular of sorts that repsresents a combination of 1) most effective associations and 2) most common associations. What you get is an effective and efficient form of speech. One that gives up poetic/aesthetic dimensions for precision. But because tags are also navigation (links to online content), the sacrifice makes sense. Navigation systems ought to be consistent. But who knew they could sustain so many labels.

(i'm reminded of a friend who once joked of making an actual scale map of the world. tags: an full scale map of language?)

Fragmentation of online conversation

Commentary, sight, side-play....

This pulled from an old draft of some definitions I was working on several years ago. I go back to old writings now and then to make sure I'm not in fact thinking in circles.


Commentary is a form of side play. It frequently involves the kinds of side play that serves as commentary on the exchange at hand. In some cases, however, it comes as if from nowhere. Commentary may be directed to events or news completely extrinsic to an ongoing exchange, or may even be designed not as sideplay to an existing exchange but as the beginning of an exchange. Commentary by its nature offers a face-saving option to recipients of the comment. They can choose to either acknowledge it or ignore it. In principle, the speaker is not emotionally invested in either outcome. For this reason commentary has the character of play. It's not serious in nature and is not to be taken seriously. This makes it free of any obligation on the recipient to reciprocate.


"For example, the terms 'speaker' and 'hearer' imply that sound alone is at issue, when, in fact, it is obvious that sight is organizationally very significant too, sometimes even touch. In the management of turn-taking, in the assessment of reception through visual back-channel cues, in the paralinguistic function of gesticulation, in the synchrony of gaze shift, in the provision of evidence of attention (as in the middle-distance look), in the assessment of engrossment through evidence of side-involvement and facial expression—in all of these ways it is apparent that sight is crucial, both for the speaker and for the hearer. For the effective conduct of talk, speaker and hearer had best be in a position to watch each other." Erving Goffman (Forms of Talk, 130)


Blogging's popularity now makes the distinction between direct and indirect discourse even more relevant than it was then. Comments on blogs, responses to those comments, the use of trackbacks and sites like co.mments.com... these are all attempt to thread together fragmented and decentered posts, comments, links, responses, and references (quotes). The nature of conversation itself changes when turns are not only skipped but discarded whatsoever. When it's impossible to tell whether a post is directed to anybody. When all is said, as if it's said "at" people and not "to" them. Conversation becomes a form of talk in which the participants are not concerned in reproducing their relationships at the same time, in the act of talking. A form of talk that has more in common with the wikification of knowledge and messaging, gathering and aggregating what's been said, but void of those who say it having anything to do with one another. A form of talk that's mobile, profoundly mobile.

Social operations made virtual organization of social fields

I'm working out some ideas on hitchcock, influenced by lacan/zizek... Thinking about what makes a crime, and that a crime requires a judge, and that the judge in hitchcock is the gaze. But that in film it can also be the command (voice, often mother), or the law (word, often father). Think M, the trial, for the law. Psycho, with the dead mother's voice... Hitchcock operationalizes the judge, and infuses the field with it. So the eyes are removed, become the camera seeing, and the whole film is infused with the gaze (this being the conventional lacanian reading of hitch).

Could we theorize the same of social software? That a social operation is dispersed throughout a field to become its virtual function? Connections and friends. Celebrity and popularity. Speed and participation. Expertise... News... Each of these being an operation that produces a presencing of participants online (where presence is absent, invisible, and atemporal...)

Human Factors and Affective Affordances

Expressive affordances: A means of describing the system's ease of use in its way of presenting the user to the rest of the community.

• The importance of non-threatening profiling and other means of presenting one's self in ways that are distinctive and that do not seem likely to cause embarrassment or regret!


• Because the system will contain a profile of each member, how well does suggest profiling strategies and uses (especially to newcomers)? Does the system suggest ways in which users can be themselves, and alternatively, suggest conformity where meta-data expect it (as in multiple choice preferences).


• How well does the system suggest That this is not just a technology, a web site, etc. it's a communication tool. It interfaces the user's presence in the world. The user has a notion of how it relates to him/her, how it affects his/her position/status. Do you even want users to realize that they're perceived by others? Transparency: how much should users be aware of the presence of other users?


• Attracting attention, standing out, keeping and holding attention and interest, rising above the group, not rising above the group, standing out in the noise, being interesting, attracting the right attention, focusing interest on most salient points, getting strokes from others, appearing in public, self-presentation management..


• The Cheshire grin: a smile shown to others even when user's not around. How wide can you grin, to how many? An address, a trace, a mark, a mailbox…. This strange remainder of a person. When it comes to face, interface is effacing.

Temporal affordances: How well does the system suggest its temporal rhythms, regularity in system events and routines, in traffic and participation?

• What kinds of interaction speed and frequency do discussion areas suggest to users?


• Does the system convey to users what's going on at various times of day?


• Does the system have "real time" features or indicators?


• How well does the system map its real-time action to user rhythms


• What long-term rhythms does the system facilitate, or discourage, and how well are these presented to users? If discussions fade away, are efforts made to resurrect them, archive them, or hide them?


• What is new, and what is old?

Social affordances: How well do the system's handling of interaction and communication among members and across groups and the community overall map to familiar (real world) social practices? Are variations from real world norms made clear to new users?

• Can proceed as they would in everyday interactions? What else do they need to know, or should they do, to safeguard themselves and their interactions from the risks and embarrassments a social software system can pose?


• In the real world, new connections are an improbability. Social settings, lubricants, past times and so forth help make them more likely. Social software is another means by which to increase one's exposure to people. Does the system suggest to users how it connects people? Does it suggest strategies and tactics? Can users do as they normally would, when it comes to making new acquaintances? Or are there cultural or technical exceptions users need to be aware of?

Social competence is a fact of life, and is something that matters to all of us. Does the system facilitate, or hinder, user's pursuit of competence? Does it help them become competent? How is competence spread from advanced users on down? In a welcoming manner? Are experts encouraged to build competence among other members?