BBC research shows that 77% of the UK’s online population is now actively participating in some way. We have been aware for some time that the 1-9-90 percent rule (or 1% rule) of interaction is too simplistic and this research adds more insight in understanding this dynamic. The BBC’s model of Participation Choice identifies four key forms: passive, easy reaction, easy initiation and intense participation.
“The mobile experience we have today is basically designed for tech-savvy businessmen,” says designer Amid Moradganjeh. This is a mistake, he thinks. There is another group of people out there, a bigger group. They have an “average digital life,” meaning that they don’t have to process hundreds of emails a day while running from meeting to meeting. While many of them do have a rich digital existence on the desktop, they see little need to stay fully connected when they go outside. One explanation for this is that smartphones simply haven’t become cheap enough and that, inevitably, we’ll all come to own one. Moradganjeh wonders if for many people an iPhone/Android smartphone is too complicated and too much power. For his thesis project, he engaged in a program of research and speculative design which resulted in Rimino, “an attractive, invisible and more integrated experience.”
Rimino – A Human Touch on Mobile Experience from Amid Moradganjeh on Vimeo.
The Rimino concept might not be exactly right, but shows why thinking about user experience design from the perspective of different users is so powerful.
Google+ has stirred up interest in the issue of online identity and the use of ‘real names’ – I’m seeing support for and against this policy being expressed. Of course people have always been concerned about online identity and the privacy issues around social networks, particularly massive networks like Facebook. So why is this an issue now?
Google+ simply came about at the right time – it presents the oppourtunity to do things differently. Or as I like to think about it, we are re-evaluating the promise, tool, and bargain offered by these services.
For those arguing for real names, the basic argument I’m hearing is that people like the idea of creating a social network based on those real identities because it will create a better, safer and more friendly environment. And of course, why do you need to hide behind a pseudonyms anyway? A more blatently commerical view, but worthy of consideration, is the argument that if you want the benefits of transacting online in interesting and social ways then the network needs to know who you are.
Focusing on the arguments against real names:
The way I think about is that if this is to work, then people are really asking for the creation of an online identity card. This presents a useful way to engage with the issue of ‘real names’ – as a primer Wikipedia has an introduction to the pros and cons of identity cards, which I won’t repeat here. Not only would we need to enforce the use of real names, we should also consider systems to create compliance and trust in other aspects of how people present themselves online, including their profile picture and profile information.
Personally, I wouldn’t rely on that ‘real name’ that appears on the screen. Social systems (online and physical world) can be gamed and identity is only one element of trust. What we actually need to think about are circles of trust and building systems that allow us different levels of freedom and interaction using degrees of identity, just as we do in the physical world.
I mean, imagine if each and every conversation or transaction in the physical world required you to identify yourself explicitly. Even worse – if you refused to show that ID card for each conversation or transaction, you would be excluded from the community you live in.
We actually need to find a balance between the promise, tools and bargin made with social networks so that it benefits both individuals and the other users and stakeholders of the network. I’m not sure a blanket real name policy achieves that.
Credits for images used in the fake identity card: Social media icons by Nicolas Gallagher (CC BY-SA) and face by Roger Braunstein (CC BY)
The greatest metric for predicting job satisfaction and engagement is the social support perceived by the employee. And job satisfaction and engagement directly correlate with productivity. So the best and fastest way to more connected and therefore more productive is to receive more social support from others at work, right? Not so fast.
…
The past two decades of research on social support has mistakenly focused on how much social support you receive, not how much social support you provide. It turns out, that giving feels better, does more for you, and provides greater returns in the long run, than getting ever does.
Not using that wiki or internal social network that your company setup for you? Maybe the only person you are hurting is yourself.
I know that a social workplace provides benefits to organisations, but its good to see some emerging research that points out the positive impact on employees who provide social support to the other people they work with.
Dirty little secret – only 5-10% of staff will make use of social part of intranet – no evidence for this – but hear this #kmaus
Another comment that caught me attention from #KMAUS. My intention isn’t to shoot the messenger here, but I do wonder if this is a misapplication of rules of thumb (like the 1% rule) and consumer Web technographics? Of course if you simply drop in ‘social’ as a feature on your intranet, then I can imagine that this might be the case – but not the social intranets I’m aware of or have been involved with.
James Dellow's Blog Archive 