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

IVA – Royal School of Library and Information Science

Social navigation, user-to-user mediation
and participatory mediation spaces
Lennart Björneborn
Associate Professor, PhD
University of Copenhagen
LB@iva.dk
http://ku-dk.academia.edu/Bjorneborn

BSc course „User behaviour‟, fall 2013


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
(Björneborn 2011. Behavioural Traces …)

3



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‟ activities
mediated 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

social
navigation

follow traces

leave traces

follow traces

leave traces

= more affordances
for serendipity
leave traces
user-to-user mediation
5 Björneborn, BSc course, fall 2013


typology: user-to-user mediation & social navigation

6


indirect user-to-user mediation and social navigation

mediation spaces with affordances
both for leaving traces
and following traces

7


mediation spaces with affordances
both for leaving traces
and following traces

8


”participatory mediation spaces”
= more affordances for interaction in whole „life wheel‟

learn/ experience/ consume/
reflect/ remember/ …

find/ search/ explore/
discover/ select/ …

9

create/ produce/
edit/ remix/ copy/ …

store/ save/ organize/
facilitate/ structure/ …

share/
mediate/ communicate/
disseminate/ inspire/ …



“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


“participatory museum”

11

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


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


new media literacies

cf. Björneborn (2011):

(Jenkins et al. 2006:4) „participatory literacies‟
• play > the capacity to experiment with one‟s surroundings as a form of problemsolving

• 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
13
13

respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms


barriers for participation

(Björneborn 2013 work-in-progress)

technical 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
socio-cultural barriers

+ more!

• 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
14

• prefer top-down quality control by staff or others


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

‟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
15

creators

conversationalists

critics

collectors

joiners

spectators

inactives
16

‟participation ladder‟

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

different degrees of participation


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


“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): 42-53
http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/papers/2011/interactions-coverstory.pdf

18


„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

„scaffolding‟

20

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


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
21

 ‟reputation ranking‟: promoting quality contributors


„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)

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

22

„memex‟

23

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

24

Ted Nelson, 1965 – „hypertext‟

25

Baran (1964). „On Distributed Communications‟

26

Tim Berners Lee, 1989/90 – „World-Wide Web‟


”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
www.edge.org/conversation/the-adjacent-possible
[Board game „Tantrix‟]

27


Internet = computer network
= new „adjacent possibles‟

28


Ericsson Medialab

Web = document network


www.cybergeography.org/atlas/




Adamic et al. (2003). A social network caught in the Web

Web 2.0 = person network


“Social Software Building Blocks”
(Smith 2007)

• 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
31

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


(Kietzmann et al. 2011)
32

33

4 network layers in digital mediation spaces
 reachability structures  „adjacent possibles‟
 serendipity affordances
places/
forums
people/
profiles
artefacts/
resources

metadata

33

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


”participatory mediation spaces”
= more affordances for interaction in whole „life wheel‟

learn/ experience/ consume/
reflect/ remember/ …

find/ search/ explore/
discover/ select/ …

create/ produce/
edit/ remix/ copy/ …

store/ save/ organize/
facilitate/ structure/ …

share/
mediate/ communicate/
disseminate/ inspire/ …



summing up
 social navigation
 user-to-user mediation
 participatory mediation spaces
 barriers for participation
 designing participatory affordances
 “adjacent possibles”
35


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

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Social navigation, user-to-user mediation and participatory mediation spaces (20)

More from Lennart Björneborn (8)

Recently uploaded (20)

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