REFLECTION ON SOCIAL AND MOBILE COMPUTING TOOLS

Petra Thomas: 40777465

This article discusses the phenomena of online social spaces; the growth of online social networks focusing on possible contributing factors that lead to the success or failure of those spaces. Since sociologists began studying the Internet, HCI (Human Computer Interaction [2]), ID (Interaction Design [3]) and CSCW (Computer Supported Coordinated Work [4]), their focus was on how people used the Web, and changes to social structures [1] rather than the technology itself. Using several different forms of CSCW, such as Facebook, Delicious, Flickr, Blogger, Twitter, Google Calendar and Last FM, I will identify how successfully these technologies promote socially interactive cooperative spaces, and a reflection of my own personal experience.

CSCW examines how everyday interaction between people takes place, in both social and the work environments, and looks at how this can be integrated into an online space. By studying different methods of communication such as, face to face (same place at the same time), synchronous distributed interaction (different places at the same time, perhaps a phone conversation), asynchronous interaction (same place at different times, a noticeboard would be an example), and asynchronous distributed interaction (different places at different times) the complexity of how to successfully structure an online communication or collaborative technology becomes more apparent.

“Casual interaction is made possible by interpersonal awareness, the understanding of who is around, what they are doing, and whether or not they are available for conversation and collaboration [6]” is discussed in Patterns of Contact and Communication in Scientific Research Collaboration, while analysing face to face social interactions within the workplace. Face to face communication affords visual clues and unwritten interaction rules often dependant on cultural upbringing, as to how the interaction or communication is conducted or structured depending on a given situation, taking into account to whom we are speaking and in what context. A phone conversation often affords tonal qualities or audio cues to ascertain how the person on the other end is receiving the conversation. Asynchronous interaction does not provide these mechanisms of informal cues that allow people to perceive breakdowns or misinterpretations that can be dealt with immediately.

Facebook attempts to provide an online communication, or collaborative space for our group of Queenslanders, providing different forms of interaction to encourage communication with others in an informal playful environment. I have been bitten by Vampires, poked by people, asked questions and an assortment of other interactions, would not fit a normal pattern of behaviour in a face-to-face working environment. However Facebook provides a feeling of belonging within a group, and by excluding social norms of face-to-face interaction, overcomes barriers that other technologies have not achieved (for me). “The challenge is how people can balance the awareness information they want others to have of their work with their own privacy needs [5]” is another issue that for me was difficult to overcome. However, users are able to decide how much information they are prepared to share.

Facebook by far was my favourite cooperative space for interaction, as it provided me a playful environment, a fun environment, and a feeling of acceptance. I was aware of others participation and could see what “my friends” were doing and what their extended friends were doing. I was able to have non-intrusive conversations successfully in an asynchronous distributed environment, coordinating my time schedule to enjoy this space. The use of email to alert me of updates made this space almost a synchronous distributed interaction at times. This technology is successfully overcoming the barriers of non-verbal communication online. The clever integration of commonplace forms of communication, or game playing in a physical world has been taken and modified to suit the web environment.

Flickr provides a form of conversation in an asynchronous distributed interaction by allowing comments to be made on the posted photos. You are aware of people using the technology, and could easily be used for collaboration for projects where sharing of images is needed. This technology can be expanded to printing out of photos or making them into books to share using other technologies such as Blurb. There is a feeling of being welcomed into the larger community by use of the ‘Explore’ navigation, and being able to access other peoples photos via categories or location searches. Commenting allows for interaction between people. Flickr also successfully contributes an online community for people to enjoy.

Delicious, for social book marking allows me to see related articles. This has proved to be a very useful tool for gathering information of a specific category and would be particularly beneficial in a collaborative project. A research project for “Improving Web Page Revisitation: Analysis, Design and Evaluation” [7] looks at how to improve finding a previously visited page, the one that you found a month or so ago and you don’t remember what it was called or what section you found it in. By using a social book-marking tool such as Delicious then it would be easily found, by both you and your colleagues and associated articles could also be categorised, and/or accessed. While using Delicious you are aware of others using this tool, it is a more subliminal feeling of belonging to a larger group, and coordination would be by means of creating a group and the use of dating submissions and tagging specific words. Delicious, while the feeling of community is less apparent than Facebook, it still successfully implements a useful tool for on online collaborative community.

The Last FM is another technology that is allows for collaboration by entering information, and creating an awareness of others also sharing the experience. By creating group collaboration, and inviting friends to share your choice in music, and you theirs, a form of asynchronous distributed interaction provides a platform for sharing musical interests. There are enough interesting features on this technology to generate return visits and be an effective tool for creating friends with shared interests in music. Last FM really didn’t inspire my interest and I did not feel involved in this community, however that could be more my own use of music for a personal time out, rather than an online caring and sharing environment.

Google Calendar, on its own is a calendar, used in conjunction with other technologies this could be useful in collaborative work for accessing not only your own schedules but also those with whom you’re working. Importing friends Calendars give access to their timetables, so that finding a time that would suit everyone could be beneficial. My own preference would be to use another technology to set up meetings etc, as what I have planned may not have made the online calendar. A more direct and synchronous form of communication for setting up meeting would be my preference, as communication could possibly break down with regards to changes made not being accessed. Awareness, people having access to my timetable and organising my own time, and my own preconceived ideas of someone else’s availability could create problems. I would use the online calendar as a backup only, unless some stringent guidelines were implemented within the collaborative group.

Twitter, the one technology that I had issues with. Do I want people to have updates on my status? Do I want to bore them with updates of what I am doing? This potentially could be an expensive exercise using mobile phone technologies, and annoying to say the least. If I were going to send information in this format, it would be via a SMS or an Email, without introducing another technology. Twitter for me was the least inspirational, although the widget that could be installed unobtrusively onto the desktop, to just see what others are doing may have uses for people.

Blogger, one of my favourite tools for collaborative work so far. Blogger was used for group blogging, coordinating, and asynchronous conversations. Blogger worked very effectively for two Studios that I worked in, Temple Experience and Lazy Panorama Table. The groups for these projects both saw a value in using the Group Blog to document what research they found useful, what they were doing and what they had achieved. The asynchronous distributed interaction afforded collaboration on the projects without the disruption of phone calls or even MSN, although both of these were also used. Group meetings using msn were also helpful. Limitations on the normal rules of face to face conversation being over-ruled on this technology, created different directions in the conversation and it was not as effective as a post to Blogger where each persons input could be fully stated and justified. Blogger posts could be read without interruption and follow up research or a more complete understanding by reading group findings that were different to your own, before commenting or deciding, giving time to speculate on the potential outcomes. The tools that were particularly useful, were the ability to upload photos, give as much textual information as needed, add comments, multiple logins and the choice of privacy settings. Administration rights were also an option that could be used in a variety of ways, depending on the use of that particular blog. This form of communication in a collaborative setting was unobtrusive to individual timetables and work schedules and can be successfully implemented for CSCW. The social aspect of Blogger allows for personal blogging that can be made private or public, and there are many useful and interesting blogs that are made public. Being able to comment makes you aware that people are viewing and reading your blog, as I found in Project 1, when I failed to include all people involved in creating Touch-Sensitive Apparel, and one of the designers left a comment to correct me. I was grateful for her comments and could rectify my mistake and was quiet surprised that by the fact that the internet is such a small place.
By being able to leave my own comment and apology in answer to Cati, made me aware of how personal a blog can be, and aware of being in a larger community which is unsighted but most definitely there.

In conclusion, Blogger for a work environment is most successful, Facebook succeeds on a social level, promoting a community awareness, Flickr adds a dimension of sharing images with friends and gives an insight to peoples lives, while Delicious provides a community of like minded links to material. All of these were successful in their own rights providing people the opportunity to decide how involved individually they would be, and how much private information they would invest into the community. All provided awareness, a successful form communication and collaboration on an Asynchronous Distributed Interaction technology.

“Casual interaction is made possible by interpersonal awareness, the understanding of who is around, what they are doing, and whether or not they are available for conversation and collaboration [6]”. Although this statement was directed at face to face communication and collaboration, being aware of social rules and behaviours (example: if someone appears to be busy come back later if possible), in a working environment, some of the discussed technologies have cleverly integrated casual interactions into online social networks. Using the technologies you are aware of others are using that site and casually dropping in from time to time, you can collaborate with others, coordination is not a necessary integral part of the experience, and you are able to communicate in many different ways with people within that social group.




Bibliography

1. Cockburn, A., Greenberg, S., Jones, S., McKenzie, B., & Moyle, M. (n.d.). Improving Webpage Revisitation: Analysis, Design and Evaluation. IT & Society , pp. Volume 1, Issue 3, Winter 2003, PP 159-183.

2. Danino, N. (2001, November 14). Human-Computer Interaction and Your Site. Retrieved August 18, 2007, from Sitepoint: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/computer-interaction-site

3. Preece J., S. H. (2007). Interaction Design, beyond human-computer interaction . Retrieved August 18, 2007, from Interaction Design: http://www.id-book.com/




4. Brimck T. (1998). Groupware Introduction. Retrieved August 18, 2007, from Usability First: http://www.usabilityfirst.com/groupware/intro.txl

5. Tee, K., Greenberg, S., & Gutwin, C. (2006). Providing Artificial Awareness to a Distributed Group through Screen Sharing. Proceeding of the ACM CSCW'06. ACM Press.

6. Kraut, R., Egidio, C., & Galegher, J. (1990). Intellectual Teamwork: Social & Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. In Patterns of Contact and Communications in Scientific Research Collaboration (pp. 149-181). LEA Press


7. Cockburn A., G. S. (2003). ITandSociety.org. Retrieved 08 16, 2007, from Volume1, Issue 3, Winter: www.ITandSociety.org