This link has been bookmarked by 46 people . It was first bookmarked on 02 Mar 2006, by Sarah.
-
07 Oct 11
-
when we poll users about what they actually do with their computers, some form of social interaction always tops the list -- conversation, collaboration, playing games, and so on.
-
computer-as-box
-
computer-as-door,
-
proposed responses to flaming have consistently steered away from group-oriented solutions and towards personal ones. The logic of collective action, alluded to above, rendered these personal solutions largely ineffective. Meanwhile attempts at encoding social bargains weren't attempted because of the twin forces of door culture (a resistance to regarding social features as first-order effects) and a horror of censorship (maximizing individual freedom, even when it conflicts with group goals.)
-
-
24 Aug 06
-
21 Apr 06
-
29 May 05
-
19 May 05
Michael GilesGood piece on social software.
-
16 May 05
-
24 Apr 05
-
21 Feb 05
-
20 Jan 05
-
07 Dec 04
-
14 Nov 04
-
11 Nov 04
M GClay Shirky on Flaming and the Design of Social Software
-
We have grown quite adept at designing interfaces and interactions between computers and machines, but our social tools -- the software the users actually use most often -- remain badly misfit to their task. Social interactions are far more complex and unpredictable than human/computer interaction, and that unpredictability defeats classic user-centric design.
-
-
10 Nov 04
-
09 Nov 04
-
08 Nov 04
-
We have grown quite adept at designing interfaces and interactions between computers and machines, but our social tools -- the software the users actually use most often -- remain badly misfit to their task. Social interactions are far more complex and unpredictable than human/computer interaction, and that unpredictability defeats classic user-centric design. As a result, tools used daily by tens of millions are either ignored as design challenges, or treated as if the only possible site of improvement is the user-to-tool interface.
-
-
07 Nov 04
-
06 Nov 04
-
Tom VilotA very interesting discussion of the design of software around "the group" rather than the individual.
----
-
When we hear the word "software," most of us think of things like Word, Powerpoint, or Photoshop, tools for individual users. These tools treat the computer as a box, a self-contained environment in which the user does things. Much of the current literature and practice of software design -- feature requirements, UI design, usability testing -- targets the individual user, functioning in isolation. And yet, when we poll users about what they actually do with their computers, some form of social interaction always tops the list -- conversation, collaboration, playing games, and so on. The practice of software design is shot through with computer-as-box assumptions, while our actual behavior is closer to computer-as-door, treating the device as an entrance to a social space.
-
-
05 Nov 04
-
Christopher AllenWe have grown quite adept at designing interfaces and interactions between computers and machines, but our social tools -- the software the users actually use most often -- remain badly misfit to their task. Social interactions are far more complex and un
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.