Pieces of me on community... : design

Web 2.0 Expo New York 2008 highlights

b2ix — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:57:00 GMT

This past week, I had the honor of going to O'Reilly's Web 2.0 Expo in New York City. Overall, it was a great event that allowed me to connect with some of the great minds in the industry in addition to learning a lot.

Some highlights from the conference:

Tim O'Reilly's keynote -- as someone who is passionate about community first and foremost, O'Reilly's call to action for us to focus on what matters really hit home for me. Community -- not limited to technology, is what brought me to Microsoft. I think tech has a big role, but ultimately the measure of it's true worth is what does it mean to everyone else? How does it solve the really big problems of facing the environment, global health, civic participation and so on? Thank you, Tim for calling attention to what really matters.

Clay Shirky's keynote -- I've always appreciated Shirky's insights in bringing much needed depth and focus to looking at how community affects social interactions. Looking at the so called information overload problem through the lens of broken filtering methods changes the conversation, in my mind, and helps us all focus on problems to tackle

Genevieve Bell's presentation -- Much like the keynotes by O'Reilly and Shirky, this session (and her abbreviated keynote) brings a different perspective to the Web2.0 space. As an anthropologist for Intel, Bell brings rich insight and poignant questions for the future direction of how the internet impacts social interactions. How this physically shapes our environment, and how it changes our experiences with technology and each other present many new challenges and opportunities for all of us.

Avinash Kaushik's presentation -- Focused on the topic of analytics, Kaushik gave a great overview of how we effectively measure and analyze what is really going on with the Web2.0 space. Kaushik provided great insight, and gave a thoroughly entertaining presentation for a topic that can be quite dry at times.

Joshua Porter -- where to begin? Porter is great! A must read in my list of feeds, I appreciated the opportunity to attend both of his sessions, in addition to dialoguing with him on issues of reputation and recognition. (thanks also to Bryce Glass for the clarification of your definition).

Other highlights -- connecting with folks from all over. Whether it was with folks from Etsy, Lithium, Cisco, Chile, or old colleagues it was great. Additionally, New York has always been my kind of town and it's a great place for something like the Web2.0 expo. Thanks to everyone involved!

Is love more powerful than the web?

b2ix — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:10:00 GMT

With two high profile product launches being a bit bumpy (here, here) I can't help but wonder if the all of the love for their products (and the spread of love via social networks) is causing strain on the underlying infrastructure.

Course, from a community standpoint, this sounds like a good problem to have.

Notes on "The MAIN model for understanding tech effects on credibility"

b2ix — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:06:00 GMT

I recently ran across a fascinating paper in MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning by S. Shayam Sundar titled, "The MAIN Model: A Heuristic Approach to Understanding Technolgy Effects on Credibility." Given the work that we're doing on recognition, this paper on credibility seemed rather appropriate to dig into for more detail.

Early on, Sundar lays the foundation to say that credibility cannot be effectively determined by considering solely the source of the information. Specifically, Sundar says, "Ultimately though, source, message, and the medium credibility serve as nominal cues -- a given source is perceived as credible or not, a given message element is perceived as credible or not, and likewise a given medium or media vehicle or channel is perceived as credible or not -- that provide mental shortcuts for effortlessly assessing the believability of information being received."

Instead, Sundar goes on to explain the value of using a cues and heuristic model to better understand how technology plays a role in helping people determine the relative credibility of a site, piece of content, person, etc. The model Sundar proposes is based from ten years of research from The Media Effects Research Laboratory at Penn State University -- Modality, Agency, Interactivity, and Navigability (MAIN).

I won't go into the rest of the paper, but suffice to say Sundar explores the various aspects of MAIN in more detail. While I found the framework quite interesting (especially as I think about how that may apply -- or not -- to MSDN, TechNet and Expression), what I get most from reading papers like this is a fresh perspective on issues I deal with day to day. I also find myself making multiple connections to areas of study or examples in real life I would not have thought of before. For example, when talking about heuristics ties to Interactivity, Sundar wrote "Users may be likely to evaluate the system's credibility positively, just as they would evaluate a person with whom they hit it off." While I joke with my colleagues that all of our work with social media is no different than that of a dating site, the image that popped into my head when I read this was that of a chemistry.com commercial. Thinking more on this, there is something to be said about the chemistry that occurs between people when they meet. It would seem that based on how a site triggers (or does not trigger) heuristics tied to interactivity, there may or may not be any chemistry with those coming to the site.

Another example of making connections that otherwise would not have existed were it not for reading this research paper is on this notion of being a good conversationalist. Over the course of a week I've had a series of conversations on the personal skills (or lack thereof) of others. One situation was when someone commented that this other person only talks about themselves, never asking about others. The other situation was when a father jokingly talked about how he taught and modeled social skills to his son through a book (it worked!). Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but when Sundar talks of "the real value of interactivity is that it gives the user the ability to serve as a source, and not just a receiver of communication"...I think of the need to be a good conversationalist. As someone working on social experiences, how do the experiences we provide, and the sites we publish help or hinder the notion of being a good conversationalist? How are we having a conversation with those who come to our experiences? How do we facilitate the ability for others to be good conversationalists with one another?

Anyway, those were some of my take aways from Sundar's paper. I'd be curious to hear if others had similar thoughts. If you had different insights, I'd love to hear them as well.

Design patterns for reputation? Or is that recognition?

b2ix — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:04:00 GMT

It is great to see Randy Farmer's work on reputation published in Yahoo's Design Pattern Library. I like the level of detail, and the visualizations help to capture the mutitude of ways of representing this. As exicted as I am to see this, I'm not sure I would call these "reputation." Instead, these patterns strike me as different ways in which a system recognizes individuals and the actions they do. Put another way, these patterns appear to provide feedback for the person doing the action (possibly as a means of facilitating flow.)

If and when reputation comes into play, isn't that what happens when I begin to evaluate the actions of another person based on the information provided? The difference may seem subtle, but at the end of the day I do not control what you think about me and my actions. Instead, I control the actions I do, and (ideally) the visibility of those actions; Systems can recognize my actions, but my reputation will vary based on the person evaluating me. I'd be curious to hear more about why these patterns are or are not reputation. Is this all a semantic discussion or are there intrinsic differences for what we're all talking about here?

Ryan Turner's conceptual map of the social web...

b2ix — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:37:00 GMT

I ran across a great visualization about the social web from Ryan Turner. While I don't believe it quite captures what he writes, the image does capture a great deal of the complexity around social media and communities in my opinion.

First, what I love...

I'm at the center
Actually, it's not me, it's you and everyone else. He clearly puts the individual at the center of it all. Sounds pretty basic, but you'd be amazed at how much of a change this is in priorities of experience design. With some recent steps towards a more social experience on Expression, TechNet and MSDN we are beginning to get there.

Relationships of people
Friends, people reading my blog, my friends' blogs, communities of practice...all of these are called out as different pieces of the visualization. What are communities and social networks if not a collection of people and the nature of the relationships? It's not *just* about me, but (potentially) everyone else.

It's visually exciting
While it may not be evident on my blog, I am a visual person. There's nothing like a good visualization to present a strong case to folks.

Now for some constructive critiques

Relationship of tech experiences not captured
Blogs, for example are listed separate and distinct from Communities of Practice (CoP). While not all CoP are blog centric, there is no reason why group of blogs cannot serve as a CoP.

Reputation seems isolated from everything but products
I'm not going to get into the whole reputation and recognition discussion (yet) but reputation is made up of more than what happens in a marketplace. While it is indeed an important factor to consider in transactions that occur, one's reputation comes into play at multiple points of the Social web

Image does not seem to reflect the text
I think Ryan is spot on when he says communities are about groups:

Communities are different than social networks in that they are built primarily around groups of people, rather than individuals. Another way of saying it is that the group is the point in communities, whereas the individual is the point in social networks.

However, this is not evident in the image. Indeed, the visualization seems to imply that while tied, communities and social networks are separate and distinct. If anything, I would suggest that these are intricately connected and layered. (this may be a limitation of a 2-d representation of something that is more complex)

At any rate, I think this is a great step at visualizing the complexity of the Social web we're weaving -- thanks, Ryan.

"Ownership" of community?

b2ix — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:18:00 GMT

That was a question I got at TechEd Developers 2007. While I am technically on point for planning community different aspects (along with others) on MSDN and TechNet, I know that I do not "own" it. There are others, for example, focused on community from an audience specific (developers, IT professionals, etc), in addition others who are also working with community in some way, shape or form. To own it would be claiming to own all of the water in the world or something. With so many different aspects to what makes up a community, no one can really be in charge of it. The best I can do is to listen broadly, collaborate with others, and work to surpass the needs of the entire community as it pertains to MSDN and TechNet. Sounds like an interesting challenge, does it not? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this...

Some other related readings…

Bill Johnston on "Who owns community"

The International Online Community Management Association

Terminology towards a more personalized experience

b2ix — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:05:00 GMT

"Hi, my name is Brian. What's your name?"

"Hey you! Who are you? What do you prefer to be called?"

User? Customer? People? Friends?

Josh Bernoff of Forrester recently set off some discussion around the term "user." He says he's sick of users. Instead he would rather think of "users" as people, customers and/or friends.

Two out of three ain't bad.

For me, I tend to lean towards the word "user." To mix things up, I throw in the word "folks" now and again. I do this purposefully, rather than using the words "customer," "people," or "friends".

"Customer" to me is a four letter word. Aside from implying that a certain group of people are cash machines, it needlessly separates all of the people involved in the community around a particular product, service or resource. When working with communities, it seems antithetical that we would set up barriers between people.

"People," while better than customers, to me seems a bit clumsy. I don't necessarily have any moral objections to the term, however it appears to be imprecise when distinguishing between those who engage with a particular product, service, or resource and those who do not; "people" seems too generic.

What about "friends." Friends are great, however I am in no way Mr. Popularity. True, there are several folks I consider to be my friends. More still that I consider to be colleagues, associates or acquaintances. However, even those numbers are finite...and certainly not representative of a broad base of folks who interact with a particular product, service or resource.

I realize that my use of the word "user" is clumsy. It's also somewhat imprecise, and at least one colleague had negative connotations to the word as it reminded him of drug users. Others also believe it depersonalizes people.

<aside>
As I write this, the more I think "people" might be a better term than "users." At least there's no negative connotation right? While it's still not quite ideal, I think I'll start using that word instead of "users" moving forward.
</aside>

Ultimately, I don't think we have the proper terms to describe the crux of what all we're trying to get at, short of asking *everyone* for their preference of how to be addressed. In lieu of that, I think I'll be using the terms ~~"users,"~~ "people," and "folks" when talking about those interacting with and around specific product, services or resources.

I'd be curious to hear what "others" (heh, sneaky way of not using any term) have to say on this topic. What words do you use?

When individual interests and the public good intersect

b2ix — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:28:00 GMT

With a new fiscal year upon us, my role is shifting a bit. as a part of that, i've been taking a closer look at community planning, broadly speaking. during this process, i keep on coming back to a best practice of sorts that occurs when individual interests intersect with the public good.

while this can be applied to just about anyplace where individuals and the public intersect, i'd like to call out flickr in this regard. one of the killer features (in my opinion) on flickr is "interestingness." according to flickr, many actions go into determining whether or not a picture is "interesting." these actions include:

where the click throughs are coming from
who marks it as a favorite
it's tags
and much more

taking a closer look at those actions, they are all focused on the self. clicking through to a picture is to actually display the full image. favoriting is so you can find it again. tagging it helps you to find it among countless other photos. in short, the individual actions of people then go into surfacing "interesting" photos for everyone.

what is the public benefit? seeing what others on the site find most interesting. other benefits include inspiration for photographers -> better photographers, or the joy from looking at beautiful photos. many of these items are also very individual goals, but overall, the public benefits as a result of these actions.

how this relates back to overall community planning is that i think a rather nice framework, or at least pillars to keep in mind, can be derived from this example.

1 -- know your audience
2 -- what's in it for them? identify the actions and items of highest individual value
3 -- what's in it for everyone else? identify the actions and items of highest collective value
4 -- determine the points of intersection
5 -- focus efforts on making it as easy as possible for the individuals to perform those actions, find those items, etc

note -- this is in part derived from earlier readings on flow, game design and the like. nod to amy jo kim for first drawing my attention to this

Achieving that flow state for user experiences

b2ix — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:56:00 GMT

What would happen if you took great game design principles and applied them to product development for something other than games? Would you get a really fun and engaging product? Or would you get a product that completely misses the mark? I don't know the answer just yet, but I suppose that is one of the good things about iterative product development :-) In terms of what I've been able to gather so far, there's a few different variations on the theme with regards to this general notion of flow and or fun. According to social architect Amy Jo Kim, the elements to pay attention to with regards to game design include:

Collecting
Points
Feedback
Exchanges
Customization

Another writer on this topic of games and design, DanC, has these elements listed:

Action
Blackbox
Feedback
Mastery

According to a recent report about the motivational pull of video games (pdf), the following criteria are listed:

Autonomy
Competence
Presence
Intuitive
Relatedness

All of these items seem to be related to this broader concept of flow. Flow is perhaps best described by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi where he lists the following as the principle elements that facilitate this space:

Challenge
The ability to concentrate on that challenge
Clear goals
Immediate feedback
Deep involvement on the part of the participant
Sense of control over one's actions
The concern for one's self decreases
Sense of time is skewed

To put it in a more user friendly way, Karim Lakhani and Robert Wolf (pdf) describe flow as a state that occurs when "a person's skills matches the challenge of a task." Put another way, it is when your skills, experiences and knowledge all sync up to a particular situation at hand and you are in the moment when you are at your best.

Wouldn't it be great if all the users of your products and or services felt like that all the time? Seems to me that elements of flow or good game design need to be factored into the overall product development cycle. Building upon what I've encountered so far (I'm still going through Csikszentmihalyi's book on flow, among some other references) I would say that for product development that helps prospective and current customers achieve that flow state, the following items must be considered throughout the entire design process: Assuming that a user does a specific action and something happens behind the scenes, the following items should be considered:

Feedback
Personalization
Connection
Mastery
Optimization

In the case of a discussion forum where someone posts a message this flow state could look like this:

Feedback -- Message appears in location selected

Personalization -- This could be as simple as providing a personalized greeting acknowledging contribution in your native language, listing your name, etc in a conversational style or as complex as a personalized email doing the same.

Connection -- Provide links to other people who posted similar content or who are interested in similar content

Mastery -- Enable a notion of leveling tied specifically to the action of posting. The more messages a user posts, the more adept they are at the interface. Acknowledge the time (no matter how small) it takes for them to post a message. Something as simple as listing the message count, or something as complex as a reputation system tied to the frequency of content creation could be implemented here.

Optimization -- "Leveling up" needs to open up new opportunities for folks to do more. As a particular individual masters a specific action, let them do more to further optimize their experience. It could be skipping steps in a workflow because they know how to best do it, or it could be granting of additional options for them in posting a message.

...

Zooming back down to my day to day with blogs and forums...my sense is that much of this already exists to varying degrees. Granted, it could tie together more. For that matter, it could even tie together flow states for both blogs and forums. There's likely a lot more here...so I appreciate any thoughts and comments folks have on all this. thanks!

(crossposted)