Home
Archives
Archives before June 13, 2001
RSS Feed
Adaptive
Path (my company!)
About
peterme
Coordinates
Most of the Time
Oakland, CA
Interests
Current
American history around the time of the Revolution, figuring out how to marry top-down task-based information architecture processes with bottom-up document-based ones, finding a good dentist in San Francisco Oakland
Perennial
Designing
the user experience (interaction design, information architecture, user
research, etc.), cognitive science, ice cream, films and film theory,
girls, commuter bicycling, coffee, travel, theoretical physics for laypeople,
single malt scotch, fresh salmon nigiri, hanging out, comics formalism,
applied complexity theory, Krispy Kreme donuts.
surf
Click
to see where I wander.
Wish
list
Show
me you love me by
buying
me things.
Spyonme
Track updates of
this page with Spyonit. Clickee
here.
Essays
[Editor's note: peterme.com
began as a site of self-published essays, a la Stating
The Obvious. This evolved (or devolved) towards link lists and shorter
thoughtpieces. These essays are getting a tad old, but have some good
ideas.]
Reader Favorites
Interface
Design Recommended Reading List
Whose
"My" Is It Anyway?
Frames:
Information Vs. Application
Subjects
Interface Design
Web Development
Movie Reviews
Travel
| Intranets For People. Posted on 05/21/2002. |
|
At last week's Emerging Technology Conference, the session most germane to the work that I do was J.C. Herz's talk on "Networked Experience Design." In it, J.C. argued that people designing any system that exploits a network would do well to study the "social ecology" of online gaming, where the interactions between players are supported by the elements of the game environments, and spurring various cultural developments. (I put J.C.'s "social ecology" in quotes, because a Google search suggests its standard use is quite different than hers. I believe "information ecology" is the more apt term.) Lexicon aside, J.C.'s models of the gaming ecology offered insights that could be carried into other milieus. She began by breaking down the four types of gamers: 1. Achievers - they want to win, kick everyone's ass, be seen as the best 2. Explorers - they're modeling the system, they tinker with it's boundaries, winning is secondary to being the most knowledgeable 3. Socializers - they're earning administrative privileges, they run the system, they help newbies get up to speed, etc. 4. Spoilers - they're the class clowns. They're here to, as we used to say in my college co-op, fuck shit up. J.C.'s point here is simple. An online game has to provide multiple ways to win, or, perhaps a more accurate term is "succeed", because success means different things to these different roles. Not everyone has the She also stressed the importance of the "learning curve" of online gaming, perhaps most obvious in role-playing games, where people start at a beginner level, and, through experience, attain higher levels, and with those higher levels, more power, more access, and more status. But it's not enough to simply gain experience... You must be able to show others your position. It's important to remember that "networked experience design" is fundamentally social, and communication is essential. Emblems of status must be clear.
J.C. discussed how such emblems allow participants to build their identities over time. Too often, networked environments exist only "in the moment"--there's no sense of history. I've often felt that P2P filesharing systems are like the quote from Herodotus: "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." You can enact the same search a minute apart and get wildly different results. But it's important that these stories be allowed to build gradually. J.C. noted that in online gaming, people work very hard to build identities. It's important that networked environments support that, that they reward people for their efforts. J.C. then discussed the importance of simply support sociability. She argued that much of what gets sold on eBay is crap, but that's beside the point; people enjoy the interaction of trading. You just use the crap as a means to that end. She felt Napster was a step back, because it stripped the face-to-face aspects of sharing music (embodied in the ritual of the mix tape), reducing it to hunting for tracks. (Though, and I don't think she pointed this out, Napster was perhaps the first program that allowed you to peek into others' hard drives, an *extremely* social act that added a lot of context to the file-sharing, and is, for my money, the single most popular aspect of that system.) J.C. ended with a discussion of the importance of groups in our social lives. We all watch FRIENDS at the same time, not simply because that's when it's on, but because that's when everyone else is watching it... There's a notion of shared experience that creates value beyond just the content. There is a social metadata -- we share this knowledge -- and the act of sharing can often be more important *than* the knowledge. During the beta tests of Quake, clan structures emerged, to the surprise of the designers. And clans are now a standard part of any online gaming environment--people simple can't not form groups. The challenge is, How do you create wonderful membranes for groups? J.C.'s main point is a simple one: Technology always changes, yet human nature persists. Now, I've learned to grow wary (and weary) of attempts to convince me that the secret to interaction/experience/whatever design lies in the world of games. The "task" of playing a game is so different from the tasks the users of the systems I design, my immediate response is to discount it. However, J.C.'s talk is both simpler and richer than that. "Online games" aren't interesting in and of themselves. However, the way that they so clearly expose social behavior makes certain aspects of human nature exceedingly obvious (I mean, emblems of status, sharing, and group dynamics are all elements of "real world" sociability, too--it's just that the online realm magnifies them). The most obvious beneficiary of J.C.'s modeling would be corporate intranets. Those four user types, the use of experience/knowledge as status, the forming of meaningful groups--all of these are important within companies, and an intranet design that explicitly represented these elements could prove to be exceedingly powerful. Employees getting rewarded for sharing the most information (thus earning the most "cubes"). Employees maintaining group identities, not just with their department, but with other meaningful groups (basketball players, people carpooling from a certain location, etc.) Even a system that allowed the jokester a place for carrying on. Intranets need to respond to its users not just as employees, cogs in a company's system, but as people, social creatures interacting. For more on JC Herz, check out: 4 comments so far. Add a comment. Previous entry: "Who knew that Google lied?" COMMENT #1 Within this particular framework, there are corresponding characters such as, Achievers: the ones continually developing the activity being shared Just some of my own thoughts on how her model could be extended.
COMMENT #2 COMMENT #3 COMMENT #4 Just wanted to clarify that the cubes indicate how many articles a member has written for the Web site. Other members contribute in different ways, some by actively participating in our 2800+ strong discussion list ( http://lists.evolt.org ), some by helping with the development of features for the site, and still others by editing and approving articles and answering emails sent to us.
|
J.C.'s point reminded me of