9.29.11 - Response to Shirky and Howard

The Power Law that Shirky mentions is toying with my entire understanding of measures of central tendency and using them to represent a sample. So disregard everything I understand about market research when working with numbers pertaining to online communities. That will take conscious effort on my part. Shirky's point that "We're used to being able to extract useful averages from small samples and to reason about the whole system based on those averages" (128) describes me well. Where he goes next is new to me.

When we encounter a system like Wikipedia where there is no representative user, the habits of mind that    come from thinking about averages are not merely useless, they're harmful. To understand the creation of something like a Wikipedia article, you can't look for a representative contributor, because none exists. Instead, you have to change your focus, to concentrate not on the individual users but on the behavior of the collective (128).

Shirky's point has me re-thinking  how I plan to go about researching students' feelings regarding Cooper Library. A community is like the Wikipedia contributors - there is no representative user. I was initially thinking of creating a survey for student. If we need to worry about the behavior of the collective, how do you research that exactly? Do I research similar collectives and learn how to apply it to Cooper? Or does my initial reaction to create a survey still work as long as I map out how all the responses would play off one another. What if I just don't use the means of my results but factor in the medians and modes as well. That has me analyzing all components of my data and accounting for how drastically outliers can skew a mean. In fact, the mean doesn't seem too incredibly relevant when working with the Power Law. It's more the mode and median. Or, do I go for a qualitative study to account for behavior practices.

The various roles in online communities have me looking back to Howard's influence chapter and the various needs of different types of users. Keeping in mind Li & Bernoff, Kim, and Wegner's approaches to understanding community members will be key in this. They make up the collective that Shirky discusses, and their behavior plays off each other to bring about the collective behavior. 

After speaking with Ms. Reid last week, it sounds like she almost wants her efforts with Twitter and social media to reach a Broadcast-like relationship. She wants audience numbers to go up; when that happens interaction will become more difficult, and with that forming a community. She says that she tries to respond to every tweet that mentions the library. Will this still be plausible with an increase in followers? This is where I feel Shirky clarifies the difference between audience and community well. "An audience isn't just a big community; it can be anonymous, with many fewer ties among users. A community isn't just a small audience either; it has a social density that audiences lack" (85). This distinction is key when considering our work for Cooper Library. To achieve a sense of community, there must be that social density. Applying the components of Howard's RIBS can help get there.

Another point of Shirky's that had me referring back to one of Howard's techniques was his vignette about how you'd find a specific book if they were all dumped out on a football field. The prior knowledge is eliminated once the books are strewn across the field. Shirky's use of Esther Dyson's statement sums this up well, "When we call something intuitive, we often mean familiar." And I thought of the Visitor Center that Howard recommends for new users. Let's face it, Cooper Library is new to most students. When I was a freshman at Miami one of my professors gave each person in her class the assignment of telling her what color the carpet was in the library to make us get over our fear of a new setup and get in there to start figuring it out. Could this also be capitalized on to have students create library horror stories in almost a comical light of times they struggled to navigate the library and what they eventually learned from it? Would this serve as a way of teaching students new to the library, especially freshman, of its services and how to go about doing something that seems confusing?

Finally, because I wouldn't want to ignore Howard's final chapter, his point about decision-making contexts struck me. I agree entirely with him that "the scarce resource and principal commodity in the future will be attention. The ability to connect everybody with everybody isn't going to sell the network for much longer" (221). Students are busy and prioritize on what captures their attention. It's why procrastination is so commonplace. The assignment fails to capture their attention until it's almost due. Whatever is implemented for Cooper will have to account for students' attention. Therein lies their remuneration. Being part of the community of Cooper Library cannot require a tremendous amounts of user attention. (Then again, there may be those outliers who want to give it plenty of attention. How do we differentiate to account for those few?) The decision-making context will be key for library patrons. Like Howard has been saying all along, we'll need RIBS to get there.

9.22.11 - Response to Howard

Howard:  Design to Thrive

While we haven't yet heard the parameters and specific task for our next client, I found myself applying RIBS techniques to various strategies that may be employed for Cooper Library. I suppose this serves more as a brainstorm that will need to be tailored once we speak with Micki Reid. ,I hope that it helps frame her presentation in class this evening.

Remuneration should be considered first and foremost. Howard's use of AltaVista v. Google is a good example to demonstrate how critical remuneration is. If users don't gain an experience or a benefit from being part of the Cooper Library community, they either won't join or remain members. Most research can be performed from students' dorm rooms or apartments.What's in it for them to be part of the Cooper Library community? During his presentation about the future of the book Dr. Palmquist discussed that libraries are no longer the first place students go when they have to research something. Their first instinct is to go to Google. Their second instinct is to go to Google. With Dr. Palmquist's point in mind, Cooper Library's community must remunerate its users with experiences that a Google search cannot provide. Humans are social beings. Howard states, "We humans have a deep-seated, primal need to be part of a social experience because that's how we make events meaningful" (56). Thus the remuneration we create for Cooper Library must capitalize on this need. To successfully do this we will need to determine what users of the libraries "want and need to understand and then create an environment so they can socially construct that understanding" (57). Techniques that will support this then need to be tailored to the meaning and experience users seek from the library community and balanced with the client's wishes. I am hoping that a competitive dimension can be introduced based on these considerations.

Once remuneration has laid the groundwork for the business model and how it will function to support a user experience, influence must be considered. Li & Bernoff, Kim, and Wenger help outline what to consider when planning for the various influence needs of community members. The diagrams used to show Kim's life cycle and Wegner's trajectories on page 101 are especially helpful. Techniques will be needed that cater to these various needs. Hello, differentiation. The physical bulletin board on the wall asking students for input about a particular question is a great way to give students influence. This is one component that should be adapted to the online community. I also think it's important to note that due to the nature of a university, we'll be dealing with many outbound members as they graduate. Each year there will also be a mass entrance of novices and/or inbound participants (definite reason to have a visitor's center). Understanding the structure of the university will be critical when planning for the influence needs of community members.

I agree with Howard that belonging allows for the most fun and creativity. Initiation, origin stories, rituals, mythologies, symbols, and protocols/routines/schemas are all important to consider. Certain components seem as if they will work better for a library community than others. It will also depend on what the client hopes to achieve. I see how buzz can be created from well told stories or myths--Youtube video potential? (It could also tie into the contest techniques mentioned under significance.) I also feel it's important to remember that Howard's techniques are not an all inclusive list. Using them as a starting point is wonderful; moving beyond them to create belonging is even better since it can allow for customization to a specific community.

I appreciated how significance has such strong ties to marketing techniques! I feel that creating significance all boils down to branding and how successfully the brand is recognized. The tools used to do this are limitless. The paradox of exclusivity is a definite concept to leverage. The RIBS components should not be treated as silos. Certain strategies can contribute and support several components at the same time. And social capital provides such potential for opportunity. A parallel that may be a successful strategy for Cooper Library is Gmail's kickoff. To create a Gmail account you had to receive an invitation from a member. You then became significant because you could invite a limited number of others to join. Hubs or connectors were critical in disseminating Gmail. Exclusivity was established since you had to know someone and could not just join. Not only was it exclusive, it utilized influentials.

9.15.11 - Respose to Shirky and Howard

Shirky:  Here Comes Everybody

I’m enjoying how straightforward it is to read this book.  It provides excellent examples to illustrate what it’s pointing out.  The examples Shirky has chosen are also interesting enough that I remember them, and in remembering Ivanna’s Sidekick or the Mermaid Parade I’m able to remember the idea they’re presenting.  I appreciate when authors build memory devices into their writing so I don’t have to create them myself. 

I believe it’s important to note that another Tectonic Plate Shift is happening now as society adapts new behaviors to capitalize on changes in technology.  Shirky points this out in saying that

“This change will not be limited to any particular set of institutions or functions.  For any given organization, the important questions are ‘When will the change happen?’ and ‘What will change?’  The only two answers we can rule out are never, and nothing” (23). 

Despite not knowing the exact answers, the reading assignments were paired well this week in that Howard addresses how you can best plan to address these questions.

When reading how Shirky emphasizes that “instead of counting people, you need to count links between people (26)” I couldn’t help but think of the idea of Connectors that Malcolm Gladwell lays out in The Tipping Point.  Connectors are people who have countless connections in their social interactions.  They’re the people who seem to know everyone.  Their personalities ooze charisma because they are social beings who love to collect acquaintances.  As we shift our behavior to utilize technologies that have become available, I wonder if technology is starting to take the place of Connectors.  Of course, you’ll still have Connectors as people in this Tectonic Plate shift.  They’re the ones on Facebook who have over 1,000 friends.  It’s not eliminating them entirely, but is it altering the role they played ten or twenty years ago?    Technology is also now serving as a Connector.  You no longer always have to rely on a person to put you in touch with others.  Technology has shifted into this role.  Flickr served as a Connector for people who uploaded pictures and tagged them “mermaidparade.” 

The distinctions among sharing, cooperation, and collective action are important to note.  Howard’s additional elaboration on of each concept also helps to clarify their differences.  Before technology offered an additional platform for these behaviors, it’s intriguing that people assumed that markets and management were the only two outlets for joining a group.  Most forms of self-assembly were out of the picture before technology allowed for them to happen.  In not considering a third option, organizations did themselves a disfavor; they failed to consider what happens when group action no longer needs formal organization.  We have yet to see the entire potential of this phenomenon but can use it as a reminder to always keep the question “When will the change happen?” at the forefront of our organizational processes.

Howard:  Design to Thrive

Howard’s distinction between social networks and online communities is an important one.  Being aware that these do not have to be Web based is also key in understanding how to best build and maintain these networks and communities.  Furthermore, noting that Listservs, news groups, and bulletin boards do not automatically constitute a community is important when starting to explore the potential of creating that community.

Howard makes an excellent case for investing in social networks and online communities in Chapter 3.  I was most able to identify with his point on improving retention and growing loyalty.  Having taught in a Title I school for three years, I am well aware of high teacher turnover.  I’m part of the 50% of teachers who leave within the first 5 years.  I’d never quantified this cost before.  That it costs over $7 billion per year floored me.  Having been in a district that made budget cuts the norm, I see this as an opportunity.  If you can keep those teachers, you have more money to invest in the students.  You are also in turn, contributing to preserving institutional knowledge by doing this.  No matter which discipline you’re coming from (sounds like a potential cross-fertilization opportunity) I see investment in social networks and online communities moving to assist in saving money.  Bottom line (pun intended):  when implemented well they bring the benefit of reducing costs.

9.8.11 - Response to Laurel and Jenkins

Laurel:  Computers as Theatre

Imagination.  That’s what seems to sum it up.  To successfully understand the human-computer relationship, since the word interface apparently fails to accomplish this, imagination seems to be the key.  In noting that computer software is a collaboration of the creator’s imagination with that of the user’s imagination, Laurel finds a way to connect the human-computer experience to reality.  The use of Kay’s observation sums up the role of how imagination bridges the gap that an interface would in a human-computer relationship. 

“It is not a tool, although it can act like many tools.  It is the first metamedium, and as such it has degrees of freedom for representation and expression never before encountered and as yet barely investigated” (32).

Using the imagination as a bridge to our reality allows for that pleasurable, memorable experience that Laurel is pointing out.  I sense, too, that Kolko would appreciate this line of thought.

I was not surprised that the first computer game, Spacewar, was a representation of action that allowed for human participation.  It understood the need to represent action and is appropriate to lead into the theatre metaphor for understanding the human-computer relationship.  But how did we get to the point where we needed to use theatre as a metaphor to explain the human-computer experience?  Spacewar got it right by representing action.  Had interface design continued along that path, we would not have this problem today.  Laurel uses Norman’s “point that the design of an effective interface—whether for a computer or a doorknob—must begin with an analysis of what a person is trying to do, rather than...a notion of what the screen should display” (7) to explain how interfaces should be designed.  I feel this comes back to use of the imagination again.  Imagination allows one to analyze what a person is doing, not just trying to represent it on a screen.  Imagination allows one to design so that reality and action are well represented. 

I wonder at what point the need to represent action was lost.  Spacewar got it right, so where did things go wrong in the development of interfaces?  As Norman points out, some designs began to design based on what the screen should show.  That’s a problem.  It’s starting too small and limiting future growth, improvement, and continued evaluation.  The working definition of interface that Laurel includes furthers this point.  Laurel even notes that the difficulty in defining interface proves that “we are barking up the wrong tree” (14).  Kolko would most likely blame this on failure to incorporate a user experience team into the company’s hierarchical structure.  That or only allowing them to work on the project at the very end once the screen display has been designed and the user experience team is allowed to, perhaps, change the color or font.  So since we are barking up the wrong tree, we need band aids such as Laurel’s theatre metaphor and Kolko’s interaction design process to fix our confusion as it relates to the human-computer experience.

Henry Jenkins:  Convergence Culture

I feel that Jenkins’ Black Box Fallacy is key in understanding media convergence.  Noting the differentiation between media and delivery systems can change how you approach convergence entirely.  If I’m only worried about the changing technologies, I forget about the possibilities of media itself.  The belief that everything will one day run through a black box is a distraction to being aware of how I can use the actual media.  History shows that media has adapted to technological changes.  It's safe to assume that media will continue along this same path.  Understanding how we are currently living within a culture of media convergence is the here and now.  Jenkins notes, “Convergence involves both a change in the way media is produced and a change in the way media is consumed” (16).  Being aware of this will allow for optimal production and consumption practices.

Collective intelligence seems like something that businesses should be trying to harness if they aren’t already.  It’s great buzz and doesn’t require them to expend costs on marketing to draw in a fan base.  Collective intelligence, however, doesn’t allow for corporate control and should be seen as a double-edged sword.  It does generate buzz but can also lash out against the corporation.  Jenkins does well in describing spoiling as an adversarial process.  It seems that spoiling was one of the key factors in bringing an end to Survivor.  The conspiracy theory that ChillOne was, in fact, the producer or someone inside the show started to hurt the series and probably caused it to end sooner than it would have otherwise.  The lesson from this case study seems to be that even if businesses aren’t trying to harness collective intelligence, they should at least be aware of it and have plans in place to address its effects.  Falling back on Walsh's "expert paradigm" is no longer an option.