Online Communities Workshop: Supporting Sociability, Designing Usability

HCIL 2000 Open House - June 1, 2000

 

Key Questions

 

Group 1 (facilitated by Jenny Preece)

Ø       How is critical mass defined?

·         When there is a  great leader

·         After a great leader has left

·         By the number of people

·         By the contributions to the community

·         When people feel that they belong

Ø       What is the educational value of online communities?

·       What is the cost of participation vs. the value of participation?

Ø       How can you trust information online?

Ø       Why are we developing online communities?

·         For educational benefit

·         For social benefit (some people find their voice online

·         For  increased socialization (e.g., local groups and people with similar interests around the world

Ø       Can design guidelines (principles) endure with technology changing so rapidly?

Ø       What is the threshold for critical mass?

·         Does it change over time?

·         Can you get too many members?

Ø       Different stakeholders may have different evaluation goals (e.g., designers, owners, users, and leaders).

 

Group 2 (facilitated by Jean Gason):

Ø       When are we ready for patterns?

• How do you know when the pattern fits or needs revision?
• How do patterns around roles exist?

Ø       What is the changing role of the online community designer/developer?

Ø       What is the role of metaphors for online community designers and users?  Should metaphors be used? Are they needed?

Ø       Do we reveal competing interests among competing stakeholders in an online community?  Do we attempt to resolve them?

Ø       How do we engage support and passion in online communities?

Ø       Is community defined by the fact that there is someone not in it?

 

General Discussion

Ø       Should a community live forever?

Ø       Do people get what they need then leave the community?

 

Guidelines

Group 1 (facilitated by Jenny Preece)

Ø       Critical mass requires strategies of getting people to the online community and getting them to stay.

Ø       Technology should match community needs, not be the latest and greatest.

Ø       There is a difference between public and private speaking in online community.

·         Like one side of a telephone conversation

·         Awareness of back channeling

·         Use of multiple technologies (e.g. BB, chat, and phone) at once

Ø       There is no need to reinvent the real world online unless there are specific advantages.

Ø       Rules for posting in the community must be clear.

Ø       Life time of a posting should be clear.

Ø       Make people stop, read and respond.

 

Group 2 (facilitated by Jean Gason)

Ø       Patterns are promising as vehicles for designing online community sociability and usability, but they can be confining or constraining.

Ø       The level and mode of participation in an online community are not predictors or measure of community success.

Ø       Understand the motivations for bringing individuals online and reaching critical mass. 

Ø       Creating critical mass may require different strategies from maintaining it.

Ø       Content may supercede format for success in online communities.

 

General Discussion

Ø       Groups without a shared purpose before the online community tend not be sociable.

Ø       Disinhibition in virtual environments exists (e.g., like a strangers on an airplane will tell you their own life story, but not tell someone they know).

 

Evaluation

Group 1 (facilitated by Jenny Preece)

Ø       Online community success can be measured by:

·       Feeling comfortable posting.  (e.g. in some online communities people feel not comfortable posting certain types of messages because their boss might see it or the message is an artifact that can live forever)

 

Group 2 (facilitated by Jean Gason)

Ø       Evaluation is inherently perspective based.  For example, stakeholders in a community include owners, members, non-members, sponsors/funders.  Each may define success for the community differently.

Ø       The designer's bias is not necessarily a predictor of success.

Ø       Moderation of online community (control) is something to consider as a part of the core packaging of the community.  You cannot have a community without some sense of rule.

 

General Discussion

Ø       Success is based upon your perspective. 

·         For example, owner of a website/online community may define it as the amount of time people spend looking at the site (advertising revenue)

·         Government - hits to website

·         E-commerce - revenue dollars

·         Designers - continuity

·         Users - perception and belonging

·         Real world stores - repeat visits

Ø       Posting is not a measure of success

Ø       Users "get what they want" out of the community

Ø       The community gets "smarter" as they use it.  The members?

Ø       The complexity of the community is increasing.

Ø       External measures of success (e.g., teachers using online community are interested in higher test scores)

Ø       There are two views of success

·         Product oriented: People use it

·         Process oriented:  It improves their lives.