social navigation, user-to-user mediation and participatory mediation spaces

BSc course ‘User behaviour’, fall 2013

Social navigation, user-to-user mediation and participatory mediation spaces

Lennart Björneborn Associate Professor, PhDIVA – Royal School of Library and Information ScienceUniversity of Copenhagen

[email protected]://ku-dk.academia.edu/Bjorneborn

IVA – Royal School of Library and Information Science

http://ku-dk.academia.edu/Bjorneborn

agenda

social navigation

user-to-user mediation

participatory mediation spaces

barriers for participation

designing participatory affordances

“adjacent possibles”

2


Björneborn, BSc course, fall 2013

social navigation= following traces of others

in spaces with affordances

for leaving traces

3

(Björneborn 2011. Behavioural Traces …)


social navigation ’social navigation’

• Dourish & Chalmers (1994). Running out of space: models of information navigation. HCI'94.

“moving through an information space and exploiting the activities and orientations of others in that space”

• Dourish (2003). Where the footprints lead. pp. 273-291. In: Höök et al. (eds.). Designing Information Spaces: the Social Navigation Approach.

users’ activities are guided by other users’ activitiesmediated in some way between users in a given space

• Björneborn (2011). Behavioural traces and indirect user-to-user mediation in the participatory library. http://ku-dk.academia.edu/Bjorneborn

4



user participation = more affordances

for leaving traces and following traces

in whole ‘life-wheel’ of interaction(Björneborn 2011. Behavioural Traces …)

follow traces


socialnavi-gation

= more affordances for serendipity

5


follow traces

leave traces

leave traces

leave traces


typology: user-to-user mediation & social navigation

6 (Björneborn 2011. Behavioural Traces …)


indirect user-to-user mediation and social navigation

7

mediation spaces with affordances both for leaving traces and following traces


8

mediation spaces with affordances both for leaving traces and following traces

”participatory mediation spaces”

= more affordances for interaction in whole ‘life wheel’

9


share/ mediate/ communicate/ disseminate/ inspire/ …

store/ save/ organize/ facilitate/ structure/ …

learn/ experience/ consume/reflect/ remember/ …

create/ produce/ edit/ remix/ copy/ …

find/ search/ explore/discover/ select/ …



“participatory cultural institutions”

• “I define a participatory cultural institution as a place

where visitors can create, share, and connect

with each other around content.”

Simon (2010). The Participatory Museum, p. ii

10(Björneborn 2011. Behavioural Traces …)


Denver Art Museum: visitors make their own rock music posters, by remixing clips from real posters (Simon 2010:24)

“participatory museum”

11

participatory culture (Jenkins et al. 2006:7)

1. With relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement

2. With strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations with others

3. With some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices

4. Where members believe that their contributions matter

5. Where members feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least they care what other people think about what they have created).

Jenkins, H. et al. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century.

12


13


new media literacies (Jenkins et al. 2006:4)• play > the capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-

solving

• performance > the ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and discovery

• simulation > the ability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real-world processes

• appropriation > the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content

• multitasking > the ability to scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed to salient details.

• distributed cognition > the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental capacities

• collective intelligence > the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal

• judgment > the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources

• transmedia navigation > the ability to follow the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities

• networking > the ability to search for, synthesize, and disseminate information

• negotiation > the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms

13

cf. Björneborn (2011):‘participatory literacies’

barriers for participationtechnical barriers

• too user-’unfriendly’: too confusing, difficult or rigid to contribute

cognitive barriers

• too little time, energy, memory, experience, skills, …

• fear of information overload

• too boring

(Björneborn 2013 work-in-progress)

+ more!socio-cultural barriers

• no sense of ownership: ”what’s in it for me?”

• unclear why contribution is helpful: ”what’s in it for others?”

• fear of making mistakes and looking silly

• fear of surveillance and abuse of personal data (i.e. privacy issues)

• no critical mass: too few other participants and contributors

• no obvious ‘opportune moment’ for when to contribute

• no reactions, feedback or rewards: why contribute if no one cares?

• no extra value compared to other alternatives

• prefer top-down quality control by staff or others14


’participation inequality’

”90–9–1” rule (Nielsen 2006)• 90% ’lurkers’ • 9% sporadic contributors• 1% hyperactive contributors

• blogs = 95–5–0,1• wikipedia = 99.8–0.2–0.003

”legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave & Wenger)• Lave & Wenger (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.

• ok to be a ’lurker’• ’lurkers’ observe, imitate, test, learn = socializing into

“community of practice”• learning by participating

Nielsen, Jakob (2006). Participation inequality: lurkers vs. contributors in internet communities. Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, 9.10.2006. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html

15


http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html

http

://f

orre

ster

.typ

epad

.com

/gro

unds

wel

l/201

2/01

/the

-glo

bal-s

ocia

l-tak

eove

r.ht

ml

’participation ladder’

creators

conversationalists

critics

collectors

joiners

spectators

inactives

16

different degrees of participation

http://forrester.typepad.com/groundswell/2012/01/the-global-social-takeover.html

participatory options for all

“… some people … are drawn to create, but many more prefer to participate in other ways, by critiquing, organizing, and spectating social content.”

“… some people … will never choose to upload content to the Web, no matter how easy it is.”

“Fortunately, there are other participatory options for them.”

• Simon (2010).The Participatory Museum.http://www.participatorymuseum.org/read/+ http://museumtwo.com/

17


http://www.participatorymuseum.org/read/

“low threshold + high ceiling”

“In cultures of participation, not every participant must

contribute, but all participants must have opportunities to

contribute when they want to.” (Fischer 2011:48)

“low threshold and high ceiling, allowing new participants to

contribute as early as possible, and at the same time supporting

experienced participants with a broad functionality for their more

complex tasks” (ibid.)

Fischer, G. (2011). Understanding, fostering and supporting cultures of participation. Interactions, 18(3): 42-53http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/papers/2011/interactions-coverstory.pdf

18


http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/papers/2011/interactions-coverstory.pdf

‘scaffolding’

“The best participatory experiences

are not wide open.

They are scaffolded to help people

feel comfortable engaging in the activity.”

“A supportive starting point

can help people participate confidently

– whether as creators, critics, collectors,

joiners, or spectators.”

• Simon (2010, The Participatory Museum, p.13)

19


Denver Art Museum: visitors make their own rock music posters, by remixing clips from real posters (Simon 2010:24)

‘scaffolding’

20

encouraging to contribute Nielsen, J. (2006). Participation inequality.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html

make it easier to contribute e.g. rating stars rather than writing reviews

make participation a side effect e.g. user data in Amazon ”people buying X also bought …"

edit, don't create (cf. scaffolding)

e.g. modify existing templates rather than creating from scratch

reward – but don't over-reward e.g. preferential treatment (discounts, alerts, gold stars, loan period :-)

but not too much: may stimulate people to dominate system

promote quality contributors ’reputation ranking’: promoting quality contributors

21


‘meta-design’ + ‘loose fit’

‘meta-design’: “creates open systems at design time

that can be modified by their users acting as co-designers,

requiring and supporting more complex interactions

at use time.” (Fischer 2011:45)

‘loose fit’: “designing artifacts at design time so that

unexpected uses of the artifact can be accommodated

at use time” (ibid.:46)

22

Fischer, G. (2011). Understanding, fostering and supporting cultures of participation. Interactions, 18(3): 42-53http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/papers/2011/interactions-coverstory.pdf


http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/papers/2011/interactions-coverstory.pdf

Vannevar Bush (1945). ‘As we may think’. ill. from version in Life Magazine, September 10, 1945

‘memex’

23

Ted Nelson, 1965 – ‘hypertext’24

Baran (1964). ‘On Distributed Communications’25

Tim Berners Lee, 1989/90 – ‘World-Wide Web’26

www.edge.org/conversation/the-adjacent-possible[Board game ‘Tantrix’]

”the adjacent possible”

“It just may be the case that biospheres

on average keep expanding into

the adjacent possible.

By doing so they increase the diversity

of what can happen next.

It may be that biospheres […]

maximize the rate of exploration of the

adjacent possible.”Stuart A. Kauffman. The adjacent possible. Edge, 11.9.2003

27



http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-adjacent-possible

Ericsson Medialab

Internet = computer network

28

= new ‘adjacent possibles’


Web = document network

ww

w.c

yberg

eog

raphy.

org

/atl

as/

29



Adam

ic e

t al. (

20

03

). A

soci

al netw

ork

caught

in t

he W

eb

Web 2.0 = person network

30



• Identity - uniquely identifying people in the system

• Presence - knowing who is online, available or otherwise nearby

• Relationships - describing how two users in the system are related

• Conversations - talking to other people through the system

• Groups - forming communities of interest

• Reputation - knowing the status of other people in the system

- who can be trusted?

• Sharing - sharing things that are meaningful to participants

“Social Software Building Blocks” (Smith 2007)

http://nform.ca/publications/social-software-building-block31


http://nform.ca/publications/social-software-building-block

(Kietzmann et al. 2011)

32


33

people/profiles

places/forums

artefacts/resources

metadata

4 network layers in digital mediation spaces

reachability structures ‘adjacent possibles’

serendipity affordances

Björneborn (2013). Designing for serendipity in food chains of everyday life creativity. http://ku-dk.academia.edu/Bjorneborn 33



”participatory mediation spaces”

= more affordances for interaction in whole ‘life wheel’

34


share/ mediate/ communicate/ disseminate/ inspire/ …

store/ save/ organize/ facilitate/ structure/ …

learn/ experience/ consume/reflect/ remember/ …

create/ produce/ edit/ remix/ copy/ …

find/ search/ explore/discover/ select/ …



summing up

social navigation


participatory mediation spaces

barriers for participation

designing participatory affordances

“adjacent possibles”

35



social navigation, user-to-user mediation and participatory mediation spaces

Social Media