Usability & sociability in online communities: A framework for research & practice Jenny Preece Prof. & Chair of Information Systems UMBC, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA

Overview Definitions Sociability & usability Research example Conclusions & future research

Definitions of online community Technologists Sociologists and anthropologists Business entrepreneurs (e-commerce) Any virtual space where people come together to get or give information or support, to learn, to discuss, to be with others online. Online communities support communication between patients, professionals, students, citizens and nations Small or large, local, national, or international, virtual or physi-virtual.

My definition (Preece, 2000) People –make the community. Group dynamics, needs and roles shape the community. Purposes – people come together for a purpose(s). Policies – behavior is governed by group norms, rules and sometimes formal policies. Software – supports and influences community activity.

Some numbers (10/2001) 52m US Internet users, 55% check health sites 230m unique MSN users per month 29m AOL users, 1 million more per month Over 104m ICQ users, millions now ‘texting’ Over 91,500 UseNet groups 50,000 IBM employees, World Jam, June ‘ immersive CAVE environments

Overview Definitions Sociability & usability Research example Conclusions & future research

Sociability and Usability Sociability is concerned with social interaction. Communities with good sociability have unambiguous, supportive, social structures. Usability is concerned with human-computer interaction. Systems with good usability are consistent, controllable and predictable.

Sociability Purpose – provide a clear statement of purpose, brand name, symbol People – support different types of participants and participation, show presence when appropriate, keep participants interested Policies – guide behavior by providing and encouraging conventions, moderate with policies, support trust and security

Usability  Dialog & social interaction support –provide support for communication – icons, reduce typing, visualizations  Information design – distinguish between new & old content, different types of content  Navigation – support moving around the community, searching messages, moving between modules  Access – consider speed of connection, not everyone has most recent technology

Pillars of participatory community- centered development Sociability  Purpose  People  Policies Usability  Dialog & social interaction support  Information design  Navigation  Access

Support sociability, design usability Should there be a registration policy? - Who can join? - What effect will it have on membership? Write message, design form - Interaction design - Layout - e.g. position & size of boxes etc. - Relationship with database

Norms & rules Policies Usability: Community i.e. Conviviality Efficiency Effectiveness Policies (Lewin, 1930s) i.e. Authoritarian Democratic Laissez-faire Anarchic Purpose i.e. goals Community i.e. Type of activity How much By whom Satisfaction People Functions i.e. roles Identity Communication: (Bales, 1950s) i.e. Informational Social-emotional Operations: (McGrath, 1984) i.e. Generate Choose Negotiate Execute Community Framework ScaffoldSScaffoldS Sociability i.e. On-topic Reciprocity Empathy Trust Identifiability Com. ground Privacy Software i.e. Navigation Community Information Signals termination Many CSCW issues scaffolds suggested KEY Usability: Individual Infrastructure i.e. Media type Network capacity Computer capacity Community i.e. Type Stage Size Culture 3

ScaffoldsExamples 1 People - rolesVisibility: individuals, groups, community Search: people with certain characteristics. Tools to support different roles. Babble social translucent (Erickson et al.) Donath (2002) flower gardens. Pictures, caricatures, icons, web pages to support identity. 2 Purposes – communication – Informational, social-emotional Meaningful name & description Identify: topics, expertise, communication type, who speaks & to whom. Support: dictionary, thesaurus, translation, etiquette, FAQs, common ground, empathy & trust support, to reduce typing. Sack social network diagrams (2000). Phrases to support common ground (Zimmer). Palette of communicative symbols. Tools and spaces for conflict resolution. 3 Policies – authoritarian, democratic, laissez- faire, anarchic – norm/rules, policies Make explicit: norms & rules Support: facilitation, moderating Decision making: discussion support, voting Scaling: large groups, private discussion Some large systems such as Delphi, voting software (e.g. id-book.com) and governance (e.g. in Diversity University). Tools for moderators.

Overview Definitions Sociability & usability Research example Conclusions & future research

Research: Silent participants or lurkers (Blair Nonnecke, 2000) 12 indepth interviews - Reasons for not posting Uncomfortable in public Learning about the group Building identify Fear of persistent messages Information overload Not necessary to post Personal characteristics (e.g., shyness) Group influences Lurkers often feel part of a community

From a lurker... “Maybe it's a sign of my own mild discomfort around being a lurker, but I found it reassuring to recognize myself and my behavior within the continuum you describe, and to see lurking treated seriously, with both acceptance and respect. As a lurker, I'm used to observing from the sidelines and participating vicariously, and it's strangely gratifying to read an article that speaks directly to that experience. It's almost like suddenly feeling part of an (until-now) invisible community of lurkers.”

Lurking online – data logging 12 weeks Started with 135 original subscriptions Ended with 109 DLs Health 77, software ,946 messages were transcribed into records and imported into an SQL database. 60,000 members 19,000 posters. (Nonnecke, 2000; Nonnecke & Preece, Chi’2000)

Lurking in 77 health and 21 software support lists

Variation of lurking levels for cumulative posts over 3 months

% lurking in health & software groups Low lurking when: - lists are small - traffic is high - messages are short - few single posters - ‘stars’ are present (Nonnecke, 2000) (Nonnecke & Preece, 2000)

Social presence in Babble (Erickson et al., Chi’99)

Criteria for success Usability Speed of learning Productivity User satisfaction Retention Errors Sociability No. participants No. messages Reciprocity On-topic discussion Empathy Trust Social satisfaction Lurking Uncivil behavior

Overview Definitions Sociability & usability Research example Conclusions & future research

Research Community dynamics and the role of an online patient support community in everyday life (Diane Maloney-Krichmar) Lurking and participation in 1000 online communities (Dorine Andrews, Blair Nonnecke, Greg Morton) Communicating trust using mobile devices – empathy & predicability (Heidi Feng, Jonathan Lazar) What makes online communities successful? Evaluation heuristics and metrics (Chadia Abras) Framework for online community development (Clarisse S. de Souza) Supporting lightweight communication in health support communities (Clarisse S. de Souza)

‘We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us’ Winston Churchill ‘My experience of the world is that things left to themselves don’t get right’ T. H. Huxley

Web sites “Online Communities: Desinging Usability, supporting sociability”(2000) Jenny Preece, John Wiley &Sons “Interaction Design: Beyond HCI”(2002) J. Preece, Y. Rogers, H. Sharp, John Wiley & Sons

Id-book.com

Publications Andrews, D. & Preece, J. (2001) A conceptual framework for demographic groups resistant to online community interaction. Proc. HICSS-34 IEEE Computer Society, Maui, Hawaii. Preece, J. & Ghozati, K. (2000) Experiencing empathy online. In R. Rice & J. Katz, The Internet and Health communication: experience and expectations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Nonnecke, B. & Preece, J. (2000) Counting the silent. ACM CHI’2000, Hague, Brown, J., van Dam, A., Earnshaw, R., Encarnacao, J., Guedj, R., Preece, J., Shneiderman, B. & Vince, J. (1999). Human-centered computing, online communities and virtual environments. ACM Interactions, 6 (5). Lazar, J., Tsoa, R., & Preece, J. (1999). One foot in cyberspace and the other on the ground: A case study of analysis and design issues in a hybrid virtual and physical community. WebNet Journal: Internet Technologies, Applications and Issues, 1(3), Nonnecke, B., & Preece., J. (2000). Persistence and lurkers: A pilot study. Proc. HICSS-33 IEEE Computer Society, Maui, Hawaii. Preece, J. (1998). Empathic communities: Reaching out across the Web. ACM Interactions 5 (2), Preece, J. (1999). Empathic communities: Balancing emotional and factual communication. Interacting with Computers, 12, Preece, J., & Ghozati, K. (1998). In search of empathy online: A review of 100 online communities. Proc Association for Information Systems, Americas Conference, Baltimore, USA.

Additional material if time

Community Framework – Sociability Community typeStageSize Culture i.e. local, national Sociability: i.e. On-topic Reciprocity Empathy Trust Identifiability Common ground Privacy

Community Framework – Usability Individual context Infrastructure Software Media type Network capacity Computer capacity Navigation design Community design Information design Community context Conviviality Efficiency Effectiveness Consistent Controllable Predictable Universal usability

Trustworthiness Is evidence of trustworthiness needed? What are the implications for: - social interaction? - privacy and security? How can trust be assessed & communicated? - what are the usability issues?

Social capital ‘A society characterized by general reciprocity is more efficient than a distrustful society …’ Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone, P.21

Evaluating & measuring sociability

Cyber-balkanization ‘Internet enables us to confine our communication to precisely those people who share our interests and are like us. … Fragmentation and group polarization, are significant risks.’ Cass Sunstein, republic.com, 2001, p. 192

Research: Empathy ‘Knowing what another person is feeling, feeling what another person is feeling and responding compassionately to another person’ Levenson & Reuf, 1992

Analysis of 500 messages

Evaluating & measuring usability