Designing for the Social: Avoiding anti-social networks

Designing for the social:avoiding anti-social networksFirst presentation at IA Summit – 14 April 2008Second presentation at UPA London – 24 April 2008

Miles Rochford | [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Presidio-modelo2.JPG



PanopticonIsla De la Juventud, Cuba






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Panopticon.jpg







The New York Times, 22 September 2002






Panopticon modelThe watcher is in a position enabling continual watching.

You are in a position where you cannot see the watcher.

Therefore your behavior changes because it is not possible to know if you are being watched.

Social panopticonWe are allowing others to view us, and we don’t know when they are watching us, or what they will do with the information they obtain.

We are changing our behaviour because we know others might be watching.

But can we make our social panopticon, our social ‘broadcasting’, even more seductive?

UbiquityEverywhere for everyone.

Cheap computing power, combined with miniaturization, limitless storage, and widespread network availability.

Cellphones act as a mediating device between us and the ‘network’, and are always ‘on location’.

“You Are What You Spend”, The New York Times, 10 February 2008http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html

Technology doesn’t last forever.

By default, digital content is cheap to acquire, easy to keep, and able to be rediscovered.

It now has distributed persistence.

SerendipitySerendipity is a fairy-tale, it’s magic.

You don’t find it, it finds you.

Ambient serendipity is discovering happy social coincidences.

Mediated serendipity is an attempt to create social luck, to generate joyful coincidences.

Bottom lineThis is the context in which we are designing social experiences, whether we like it or not:

panopticon + ubiquity + eternity + serendipity

The Truman Show

Paramount Pictures, 1998 Paramount Pictures, 1998

About me

About me

All opinions expressed in this presentation are my own and do not necessarily represent the official view of Nokia.

This presentationWhy do we share ourselves?

What implications does this have for design?

What can IAs do to create better social systems?

Sharing the self

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/02/24/burrup/



“We find reasons to do things,and reasons to do things together”

Irene McAra-McWilliamCHI 2008 Opening Plenary

Why be social?To live longer.

Or at least long enough to pass on your genes.

From Mark Pesce’s keynote “You-biquity” at Web Directions South, September 2006.

Why share online?Looking at – social surveillance

Looking for – growing the social graph

Keeping up – active or passive belonging

Notes from the CHI 2008 paper “Looking at, Looking up or Keeping up with People?”

Public vs privatePrivacy used to be physical. Social delay controlled the speed of information distribution.

Sharing was about entering a physical space, or possessing a physical object. It was limited by space and time.

The line between private and public was clearer.

Public vs private

private public

semi-public

semi-private

Public vs private

Token Venn diagram!

private public

semi-public

semi-private

ConsequencesSharing information has consequences - it always has had, it always will have.

Social networks make it easier to share information and harder to control the distribution of information.

Social networks can dictate how relationships are formed, nurtured and dissolved.

Social pressure makes it hard to ‘opt out’.

“The great preponderance of peoplewho are designing [social] functionality

are not in fact aware thatthis is what they are doing”

Adam Greenfieldspeaking about design for

ubiquitous computing

Enter the IAMaking connections is what we do.

We can encourage positive outcomes through persuasive design and empathy with others.

We can minimise negative outcomes and inform users that they are possible.

We can bridge the gap between user needs and business needs.

Designing for the [anti-]social



Long list of stuffConsequences

Harmlessness

Reciprocity

Deniability

Granularity

Accountability

Emergence

Evil

Difference

Think globally

Long list of stuffConsequences

Harmlessness

Reciprocity

Deniability

Granularity

Accountability

Emergence

Evil

Difference

Think globallyToken bulleted list!

Unintended consequencesCan be positive or negative.

Surfacing possible consequences can help people think about negative effects.

Designers need to be more outcome-aware.

Gaming a system is a way of forcing an unintended consequence.

Ambient intimacy now seen as ambient exposure.

HarmlessnessDefault to harmlessness.

Provide ways of reducing the risk and extent of harm, through time delays and sensible defaults.

Different people have different ways of assessing risk and judging harmfulness.

Ensure all actors in a system are harmless.

ReciprocityOne of the most powerful human behaviours.

Lurking and stalking are often undesirable, but not everyone is a contributor.

‘Bartersharing’ as a form of social contract – mutual sharing behavior to manage privacy.

Karma is a very good thing.

DeniabilityEveryone lies. Around 25% of the time.

We all know that people lie, we don’t need to be told.

‘Plausible deniability’ lets us create alternative explanations – often involving time and location.

GranularityUse different ways of looking at the same information to preserve privacy and usefulness.

Blurring, zooming and anonymizing can all provide benefits for privacy.

Imprecision particularly useful with location.

GranularityUse different ways of looking at the same information to preserve privacy and usefulness.

Blurring, zooming and anonymizing can all provide benefits for privacy.

Imprecision particularly useful with location.

AccountabilityEmpower users to be accountable for their data.

Let users own their data.

Make their actions visible.

AccountabilityEmpower users to be accountable for their data.

Let users own their data.

Make their actions visible.

EmergenceAllow people to apply their own meaning.

Support emergent behaviour through flexible design, open APIs and social platforms.

Emergence

Emergence

http://www.edvt.net/lucky-eod-tech.html



People can be evil.

New Line Cinema, 1999

People can be evil.

Goals:1. Kill Austin Powers2. Destroy the world3. Get $1 million

New Line Cinema, 1999

DifferenceWe are all individuals.

People are different, in diverse ways.

Supporting difference requires empathy.

Language is loaded with semantic meaning, especially for relationships and emotions.

Think globallyVirtual actions have real world consequences.

Consider using persuasive technology as a catalyst for change.

0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000

2006 average energy consumption per inhabitant, in kilowatt hours

1884

1752

2436

1015

Global

Developing

http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/12/avatars_consume.php



?

0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000


1884

1752

2436

1015

Global

Developing




?

0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000


1884

1752

2436

1015

Global

Developing




SummaryRemember the panopticon.




SummaryThink about the consequences.

Embrace the social.

Practice empathy.

Be human.

Thank you.Kiitos.

Thank you.Nokia for getting me to Miami (and back).

Dan Saffer, Joe Lamantia and Charlie Schick for the inspiration.

The Nokia Design Service and UI Design team (especially Joe, Tim, Tom, Eddie, Chris, Bill, Nako, Greg, Remy, Marco and Manuel) for their comments and suggestions.

Flickr and Wikipedia contributors (see presentation notes for details).

The energy used to produce this presentation was provided by carbon neutral sources, and transport was offset through ClimateCare.org.

[email protected]

slideshare.net/rochford



Designing for the Social: Avoiding anti-social networks

Design

kilowatt hours1884175224361015globaldevelopinghttp

york times

provide benefits

actions visible

rochfordgmail

accountabilityempower

preserve privacy

social