Juan,
Thanks for your comments! you went through that post pretty
thoroughly ;-) I know my posts are densely tangled thickets of prose.
It's how I write them, and once written I'm a totally undisciplined
editor. So, my apologies for my style.
On your third point about user goals, I hear you, but at risk of
splitting hairs, I still don't think that "goals" are the right
terminology. Yes, communicating may be a goal, but it's a) too broad;
b) not really what the user thinks s/he is doing and c) doesn't
explain user actions. At least, not according to the psychological
disciplines I know of.
For example, a user may want to share a tune, invite friends to an
event, wish somebody happy birthday, or tweet that they're standing in
line for a burrito. All of these may meet the goal of "communicating"
but each is a different linguistic statement, has a different appeal
to its recipient or audience, and is likely intended for a different
purpose.
--sharing a tune is communicating, but is the motivation could be the
user's enthusiasm and liking for a song, or interest in sharing a
discovery with friends. Linguistically, the statement appeals for
*acceptance* and *agreement.*
--inviting friends to an event is communicating, but the motivation
may be to get friends to an event, to promote the event, to raise the
user's "social capital" by being first to find and distribute an
event. Linguistically, the statement appeals for *acknowledgment*
--wishing somebody a happy birthday may be simply motivated by
friendship, or may be self-interested and intended to publicize the
user's association with the birthday boy or girl (as in some fbook
wall birthday greetings). Linguistically, the statement is gestural
and ceremonial, and appeals for *recognition* and possibly *reciprocity*
--tweeting a banality is communicating, but the motivation may be to
simply say "i'm here, that's all." Linguistically, the statement makes
no appeal to a response of any kind, (there's no accepting or
rejecting a statement of subjective experience like that) other than
possibly acknowledment of the user's presence (the right response
would be "hey, howsit going" and not "what kind of burrito?")
So goals are too broad. Linguistic goals include declarations,
requests, commands, instructions, and so on. Psycho-social goals can
include declaring one's presence, looking for acknowledgment, getting
attention, soliciting affection, and so on.
I think all of these are at play in social media interactions, and
thus I think we need a language or framework for user acts and for
social actions (which are individual acts organized into practices) --
the goals behind these may be proximate, tactical, and immediate, or
meta and strategic. And so on..
On point 3 lost count, I'm pleased that it resonated. There's a bit of
resonance too with meyers brigg, especially extrovert/introvert and
feeling/thinking as binaries of personality types. But meyers brigg
doesnt deal with mediated interaction, and that's why I have the three
part view of the screen. There's no way of avoiding the screen -- all
media theory is based on the insight that mediation brackets some
sense perception, and amplifies others. (phones = ear; tv = eyes)...
So I needed a model that could account for the user experience with
him/herself, mediated by the interface, and experience of others,
mediated by the interface. All mediated social interaction is
indirect, non face-to-face, and thus is not explained by social
theories of situated encounters. i also think that in any medium used
for interaction, use and use practices will contend with the aspects
of interaction that are bracketed out or distorted by the medium.
(e.g. when calling by cel phone we used to ask "where are you?"
because of mobility)
On point 4, you got me. I bailed out on the ending. I like writing the
first and middle bits the most, the wrap up the least.
That company whose name starts with a G.. is that a small g or a
capital G? ;-) I'm freelance myself so if you run into anything
interesting ping me!
cheers,
adrian
On Oct 14, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Juan Lanus wrote:
comments ...
1- [all] No subtitles, no bullets, no way to preview what cones next
in the online permanent state of decision on if I keep reading or
not. Or at least try to make the paragraps of noticeably different
sizes ... :-)
2- [para #2] "In fact our industry, perhaps more than any other,
relies on delivering compelling user experiences for its success."
Well, IMO all industries do: car makers, dress makers, book editors,
sausage sellers, musicians (hmmmm ... Keith Jarrett ...). The only
one that need not consider the user is the IRS and the likes.
Our industry is peculiar in that it spent half a century in a state
of autism, thus "the inmates...". It was not until the internet
bubble that computer UIs were exposed to untrained ("not specially
trained") people and flopped en masse, triggering Jake and the
usability wave.
3- [para #4] "For example, the conventional user-centric view starts
with user needs and goals. In social media these are not necessarily
rational and objective." and the open-endedness of social
interaction is quite interesting an idea.
But the "users" do have a goal, there is always a goal, not as
specific as "transfer money to that account" but maybe
"communicate". It reminds me of a scenario somebody pictured a while
ago of the students in a japanese university sitting at the
cafeteria sending SMS, why don't they talk!?
Communicating without hhaving to talk might be such goal ...
3- [lost count...] This seems to me a really useful point of view:
"Self-interested users act from a position of Self
Other-interested users react to an Other (user)
Relationally-interested users interact through social activity"
In Waldorf schools they say there are three statuses of the human
person: parasit, egoist, and altruist. I loosely related them to the
three stances you identified.
4- [near bottom] "... more innovation of the presentation layer, by
means of Flash, for example." brings a technology and I would not.
You take the reader for a flight at filosophical heights and
recalling a technology you crash her against the ground, a concrete
ground. The abstraction level descends orders of magnitude in a few
lines.
And my take, quality of the UI does not depend that much in the
tecnology but in the talent of those involved.
Thanks for requesting comments.
One more: I work for a company that does outsourcing. We have both
normal and big clients, including one whose name starts with a blue
"G" and is fostering a social media platform .. what's its name ...
it's in the T-shirt I'm wearing right now: "open social".
In the company there is much excitement about social networks. But I
don't see the meat, besides consuming bandwith.
So I read your primer with lots of interest, in another attempt to
see the light. It happened, up to a certain amount: thank you.
--
Juan Lanus
cheers,
adrian chan
415 516 4442
Social Interaction Design (www.gravity7.com)
Sr Fellow, Society for New Communications Research (www.SNCR.org)
LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com/in/adrianchan)
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
