You are on page 1of 11

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupz-ware.

In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2005, 22-27 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA) (in press).

User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupz-ware


Niki Lambropoulos Intelligenesis Consultancy 3, St Ronans, Nether St. N3 1QY London U.K. niki@lambropoulos.org

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to investigate the potential incorporation of methodologies and research tools in Interaction Design for online groupz-ware. As such, a strategic, methodological model for Social Systems architecture and development was elaborated based on Interaction Design so as to be aligned with the nature and the culture of naturally developed online communities. The model suggests the necessity of interaction between community managers, users as well as developers and researchers, supporting all four views and securing both usability and sociability. There are seven stages and User-Designer HCI Research Model (U-D+) deals with one research problem in each stage, as well as suggesting continuous development (+). Following the model, the first three stages are investigated. Interesting results were derived for online groupz-ware, designed for Greek teachers Online Learning Community. The model was still a high intensity project when this paper was written.

Background

The Old Computing is about what Computers can do, the New Computing is about what Users can do (interview with Ben Shneiderman; Preece et. al, 2002:458). The main aim of this paper is the use of Interaction Design Methodology for social systems architecture. As people spent significant amount of time in front of an interface, it becomes part of their environmental space in their everyday lives. As such, setting explicit usercentred goals helps designers to achieve these goals (Shneiderman and Plaisant, 2004:12) and help users to improve their environment by interacting with the interaction designers. Our proposal is considered a high intensity project (Yourdon, 2001) in which there has to date been only limited space for systematic evaluation. Since the emergence of HCI in the early nineties, the discipline has not defined its boundaries due to the fact that many disciplines interact within the field as HCI is: concerned with the design, evaluation and implementation of interactive computing systems for human use and with the study of major phenomena surrounding them (ACM SIGCHI, 1992:6). Interaction Design (Preece et al, 2002) goes beyond HCI, aimed to stress interaction and usability design for interactive products and applications stressing the importance of sociability, as HCI has neglected the the major phenomena surrounding them. In addition, based on the design of spaces for human communication and interaction (Winograd, 1997), the authors tried to involve users in the design process even from the early stages. The key principles of user-centred design were developed from the design of the OMS - Olympic Messaging System, used in 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles (Gould et. al., 1987): (a) Focus early in the design process on users and their tasks; (b) Measure users reactions and performance to scenarios, manuals, simulations, and prototype are observed, recorded and analysed; (c) Design iteratively: when problems are found in user testing, fix them and carry out more tests; and (d) All usability factors must emerge together and be under the responsibility of one control group. Our model is based on Interaction Design (ID) and takes into account Preece et al.s suggested milestones of the process: (i) identify needs and establish requirements, (ii) develop alternative designs, (iii) build interactive prototypes for initial assessment, and (iv) final evaluation (p.13). The problems regarding user-designer co-operation for social systems architecture in HCI, in order to avoid autistic social software (Boyd, 2005), were the following: (a) absence of specific methodology for online communities; (b) the great number of online communities on the net and their unique character; (c) absence of standards for online communities categorization and indexation; (d) absence of software categorization and description of characteristics; (e) absence of a flexible guide to deal with the constrains that appear in Interaction Design; and (f) the nature of research and evaluation as such, as based on users individualistic and subjective views. A model needs to be based on both formative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluation refers to different stages of development to check that the product meets users needs for improving a system iteratively and summative evaluation is correlated to the finished product for design regarding guidelines, standards, or other objectives. As consideration is needed for reliability, validity,

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupz-ware. In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2005, 22-27 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA) (in press).

biases, scope and false views (Hawthorn effect), the model could deal with one research question at the time. Continuous evaluation is needed for future adjustments at the age of Ubiquitous Computing. In the 2nd generation online groupz-ware architecture and software engineering, there is a need to identify opportunities for new technology, determine design requirements, and evaluate technology in use as well as well how users might react in the new introduction. As such, an understanding is developed of what users do naturally avoiding prescribed activities and how technology impacts them. The new model should be able to support and facilitate user experiences through designing interactions (Preece et al., 2002): (a) make work effective, efficient and safer; (b) improve and enhance learning and training; (c) provide enjoyable and exciting entertainment; (d) enhance communication and understanding; and (e) support new forms of creativity and expression. In online communities, the logical principles are only considered that might create constraints (Nielsen, 1999) since the physical and cultural constraints are actually advantages in this context. Logical reasoning is based on users common sense and consistency in reasoning for creating standards (or affordances, see Norman, 1999) as well as breaking consistency down (hierarchical task analysis) in iterative steps based on both inductive and deductive ways. The researcher/evaluator, proper evaluation framework and online applications for live research were created to follow the protean and Darwinian nature of the online communities for the age of Ubiquitous Computing: Activities Management Systems for Network Analysis for Actors and Activities Management, Time-series Design for monitoring the process in time and Discourse Analysis for Content and Knowledge Management based on Discourse Analysis software. The evaluation technique DECIDE is recommended to be one of the best for ID (Preece, et al., 2002). The suggested model User-Designer Plus (U-D+) considers users involvement in the design process immediately after an idea for a community groupz-ware and before an online community is developed. The aim is to ensure that users will be able to fully exploit the groupz-aware potential in the initial stages even before registration, as the most important stages for their full integration in the community. Interaction and engagement in social practice are part of a fundamental process by which members feel as community members community, share a common identity and focus, learn and so become who they are as they pursue shared goals over time.

User-Designer Plus (U-D+): a Multi-method Research Strategy

The initial milestone in the process is to identify needs and establish requirements. Firstly, there is a need for a strategy and a model to deal with the aforementioned problems, to support and influence community activity going beyond the autistic social software as Boyd (2005) suggested, and indicate the 2nd generation social systems. Secondly, a set of evaluation requirements criteria for sociability and usability regarding contribution was constructed for our own study, regarding the participation process in eLearning environments (Lambropoulos, 2005). Obviously, different set of requirements need to be developed, depending on the aims and objectives of the study. Different lifecycle models exist (Preece et al., 2002) from software engineering (e.g. waterfall, spiral, Rapid Applications Development) and from HCI such as Star that does not follow a specific order of steps (Hartson and Hix, 1989) and usability engineering (Mayhew, 2002). Different design approaches are HCI based like Contextual design, Participatory design, Plastic Interface for Collaborative Technology Initiatives through Video Exploration (PICTIVE, Muller, 1991) or Collaborative Analysis of Requirements & Design (CARD; Muller et al., 1995). We considered Participatory design (PD), often described as the Scandinavian Challenge (Bjerknes et al, 1987), preferably to the others, because it focuses on the intended user of the service or product, and advocates the active involvement of users throughout the design process. User involvement is seen as critical both because users are the experts in the work practices supported by these technologies as well as they will ultimately be the ones creating new practices in response to new technologies. Moreover, according to Blomberg and Henderson (1990) it advocates three tenets: (a) the goal is to improve the quality of life; (b) the orientation is collaborative; and (c) the process is iterative. A User-Designer collaborating model follows the natural process of producing or developing Social Systems Architecture: market research, experts opinions, users needs, production and continuous evaluation. As such, our suggestion is the User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupz-ware or U-D+, where + symbolise the additional element of continuous evaluation and research. U-D+ suggests seven basic stages and each stage creates the potential for the next stage. The instruments used for every stage are not compulsory but are suggested to be selected in a way that can be adjusted to the nature and the culture on the communities as well as the targets of the Interaction Designer. In order to obtain experts and users opinions and establish validity, there is a need to create a selection system based on: (a) the representative ratio for the selected community category; (b) the representative ratio for their expertise; (d) the representative ratio for the actual users and (e) the existed software. The experts stage is preferably before the users stage because the

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupz-ware. In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2005, 22-27 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA) (in press).

experts could provide the Interaction Designer with the needed overall view before users get more specific with their recommendations. The users might cover the known area; however, they would be able to give insights and improvements on the system based on their needs. As such, the known space (experts and existed software) discusses users needs, recommendations and ideas. With the aid of the research methodologies, the researchers can identify the key issues for the community development and groupz-ware improvements or production.

2.1. Stage I: Establishing Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Catalogue


On this initial stage needs, aims and objectives need to be identified, established and mapped. The main question is the reason why someone wants to start a new intervention or production. Iterative updates are needed so the Evaluation Criteria Catalogue can be adjusted to new findings or new theories, interventions and systems.

2.2. Stage II: Focus Groups


Identification of professional designers and subjects sample (target population & sampling). There is great difficulty in developing an environment of trust for an experts focus group to freely express their opinions. More than one focus groups might be needed. Target Population and Sampling based on: High level of their expertise The nature and culture of online communities Relativity to the main study target group (from 0% to 100%) Participants familiarity with different software used in online communities Accessibility to focus groups Content analysis and reports.

2.3. Stage III: Software Description - Evaluation


The second stage suggests a survey for the best applications in the market if existed and analysis of the data together with data provided from Stage I. Evaluation is based on the evaluation criteria catalogue for sociability and usability requirements (Lambropoulos, 2005). Online Groupz-war records, indexes of the basic characteristics and description of dynamic and innovative features provide useful information to be compared with the experts and users views. Ethical issues need to be considered from this initial stage.

2.4. Stage VI: Users Profiles and Recommendations


The second stage focuses on users goals and tasks, empirical measurement of communitys culture and nature (users characteristics, behaviour and context of use) as well as iterative design, based on the evaluation criteria catalogue. Data Analysis from all previous stages leads to the prototype production stage.

2.5. Stage V: Pre-Production


Prototype construction could be represented with the use of scenarios as well as the actual prototypes. Prototypes are developed based on technical issues, work flow and task design, screen layouts and information exploration and display, difficult, controversial, critical areas (Preece, et al., 2002) as well as error introductions and reactions. The need of a prototype is stressed by Interaction Designers for: (a) evaluation and feedback; (b) stakeholders can see, hold and interact with a prototype more easily than a document or a drawing; (c) team members can communicate effectively; (d) test out old and new ideas; (e) encourages reflection; and (f) answer questions, and support designers in choosing between alternatives. Finally, detailed reports are needed to be articulated. Sociability and Usability tests based on experimental design Prototype Refinements, repetitions of the previous stage. The final stage will be the point at which the data gathered begins to be redundant (data saturation).

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupz-ware. In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2005, 22-27 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA) (in press).

2.6. Stage VI: Final Production


Production of the final application. International Use on the Internet. Final Survey, Analysis and Report based on the evaluation criteria catalogue. Data Analysis: Descriptive Analysis (univariate and bivariate analysis): the collected data will be visualised into frequency tables and graphs. Inferential Statistics (univariate and bivariate analysis): Summary of tables, graphs and descriptive analysis will be further used to make generalisations by standard inferential statistical methods Measures of association between usability and sociability If relationship is established, test of significance (e.g. Chi-squre, ANOVA) could be used for the correlation

2.7. Stage VII: User-Designer Plus (U-D+), Why Plus (+)?


After the last stage, there is a need for a methodological approach which would be able to follow the Darwinian nature of the communities. As such, Quasi Experimental Interrupted Time-Series Design (Shadish et al., 2002) with the use of one Control Group was found the most suitable to answer the question (Sanson-Fisher, 2004): what credible research design can be used to effectively evaluate an intervention which might help the community?. Quasi-experimental Design is not preferable to experimental design but it is used when experimental is not feasible, most of time due to selection criteria for the group formation. So, in order to have serious threats to validity and reliability, a quasi-experimental design limits the inadequacies of an experimental design. As such, almost all quasi-experiments are unique and creative. A control group is necessary to be defined according to the targets and the flexibility of the researcher. Time series refer to a large series of observations made on the same variable consecutively over time on different but similar units. The key is setting a specific baseline point to start the series before the treatment is occurred or the groupz-ware is introduced. Baseline (Sanson-Fisher, 2004) refers to the observation of behaviours prior to the presentation of any treatment designed to alter behaviour. As such, the treatment/introduction effect is demonstrated by a discontinuity in the pattern of pre-treatment and post-treatment responses. A solid baseline is needed for the treatment/introduction and effects related to causal inference, not affected by threats like history and natural development or maturity. If the treatment/introduction had an impact, the causal hypothesis is that the observations after treatment will have a different drift, trend, slope or level from those before treatment (Shadish et al., 2002:172-173). In addition, due to the fact that the design is based on a process and not on an outcome, naturally occurred cyclical patterns could be identified as affected (for example the relationship between sociability and usability). Therefore the researcher is open to more possibilities than the ones a hypothesis framework might provide. In Short-Time-Series Design (p. 198) aggregation and causal inference are not necessarily affected if a detailed amount of data could be collected and control groups can greatly strengthen inferences. In addition, short series could facilitate assumptions about error structure rather than providing simple descriptions. Related to the expected number of observations, the study might be affected by the delayed effect. Most of times several constrains exist especially in cases where the communities belong to an organisation.

The Study: Exploring Contribution in eLearning 3.1. Stage I: Establishing Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Catalogue

Full integration in a community is considered to take place when a user actually contributes to the community and exhibits activity. Exhibiting activity is a concept present in almost all cognitive theories: Master and Disciple relationship, (Aristotle, 384-322 BCE); Operant conditioning, where conditioning refers to the strengthening of behaviour which results from reinforcement (Skinner, 1965); Information Processing as behavioural change (Schunk, 1996); Constructivism as creating meaning from experience (Jonassen, 1991); Social cognitive theory for modeling (Bandura, 1978); Cognitive Development in the stages of preoperational, concrete operational, formal operational (Piaget, 1970); Socio-cultural approach and the adaptive capacity and ability of humans to alter their environment as a socially meaningful activity (Vygotsky, 1978). Exhibiting activity is central in recent social frameworks such as situated learning as engagement in practice via Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Lave and Wenger, 1991) or strategies such as self-organised learning in social contexts (Lambropoulos, 2004). Our definition of contribution is not only related to actual gesture of sending a message

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupz-ware. In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2005, 22-27 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA) (in press).

to the community but allowing oneself to go beyond the range of experiencing limits one forces to oneself in the first place. Drop the limits and then is feasible to experience change, finding ways of experiential processing with the ultimate gesture of helping the community. Consequently, sociability and usability for contribution in eLearning is our target. As such, our targets exploration and definitions are according to DECIDE (Preece et al., 2002: 348): (a) determination of evaluation goals: sociability and usability for contribution; (b) exploration of specific questions: management and system improvements; (c) choose the evaluation paradigm and techniques to answer the questions: development of a new model; (d) identify the practical issues: identification of focus groups; experts (online community managers) and users (Greek teachers in the Greek National School Network; (e) decide how to deal with the ethical issues: ask for permission, voluntary participation, anonymity; and (f) evaluate, interpret and present the data: according to a new model. Preece (2000) defined the online communities as the people, the Purposes and the Practices. Usability is a measure of quality of users experience when interacting with a system. Usability can be defined in terms of effectiveness (task coverage), efficiency (performance measurements), and users satisfaction (ISO FDIS 9241-11, 1997). Good usability [is] consistent, controllable, and predictable, making it pleasant and effective to use (Preece, 2000:26-27). Usability for online communities is translated in navigation, access, information design and management, community dialogue support. Due to lack of space, we preferred to present the catalogue as well as data adjusted for only one of the studies, whereas in discussion, we are going to use our reports from all three stages. Table 1: Evaluation Criteria Catalogue for Sociability and Usability supporting Contribution
Usability Elements Home page elements (U-ID) Sociability Elements People- Purposes - Beliefs Domains of interest - Sense of shared identity Newcomers Members Profiles - Directory Locations News (ongoing activities, changes, world news) Mutual Relationships, Behavioural Patterns Work-related interactions Communication facilities (U-REL) Contribution Newcomers - Shortcomings Lurking Search and advanced search Common stories Inside jokes Jargon Perspectives Analogies, examples Explanations Registration Introduction & induction Membership Management Privacy and Security Levels of participation Roles Shared practices, Transfer of Innovations and Best Practices, Methods and Techniques Moderation - Netiquette One way Communication Interactions Experts - Gurus Artifacts Community Development - Promotion of Expertise Flow of information Conversations quickly to the point Problems framed quickly Shared work space, collaboration tools Groupz-ware Front Page with short and clear information, FAQ Profiling system Local-national-international Easy to be Updated regularly Community Networks, subcommunities, Tips Discussion boards, meaningful discussion topics & sub-topics Chat, Discussion Forums Live Tracking System for support Search Input (only in knowledge base or discussion forums) and Output (relevance ranking), use of thesaurus HCI dialogue design (consistent, controllable, predictable), meaningful sub-groups Easy-to-use, part of profiling From a person or a bot Control of community access, participation and roles Private chat, Members area Monitoring Users Awards Area of Expertise Control contributions content mediation Votes, Polls, Cha-bots, Surveys HCI dialogue design Synchronous or/and asynchronous Exhibition Area, Projects websites External collaboration tools Easy-to-use tools Content indexation and classification File upload, wikis, whiteboards, blogs

Language (U-LAN)

Elements for Practice (U-PRA)

Work space facilities, search and orientation (U-CK)

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupz-ware. In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2005, 22-27 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA) (in press). Consensus Knowledge Building Changes for the Information architecture, Secure Working Environment Database with search facilities Synchronous Communications Chat, Videoconference Interactive Community and Personal Feedback Synchronous and Asynchronous elements Discussion Assessment Bookmark and Rank topics (U-EVA) Assessment Evaluation Forms, Research Tools Assessment of Groupz-ware Personalisation features Customization Usability (U) Access Interface Memorability Ease of Learning Navigation Help and Support Personal Support Systems Monitoring Users Live Tracking System Research tools Social Network Analysis SoNIA, Piajek, UCINET (U-RE) Discourse Analysis Content Management System Additional features Depending on the Nature and Culture of CoP Protean Adaptation and Ease of (U-ETC)

3.2. Stage II: Online Community Managers Focus Group


Two focus groups gave us significant results for LMS properties and evaluation, the E-Mint Association of Online Community Managers with online communities as the target of discussion and members from an Association for Learning Technology, for LMS evaluation. We are going to present results from the first study. Twenty eight Online Community Managers participated in a focus group discussion (Cohen & Manion, 2000) in a e-mailing list (yahoo.groups). The aims of the study were to test the Sociability and Usability Criteria Model as well as investigate engagement and contribution in depth, as part of Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Lave and Wenger, 1991), Informal Learning (Livingston, 2000) and Consensus Knowledge Building. Target Population and Sampling was based on: High level of their expertise; The number of online communities members they were moderating; Relativity to the main study target group (from 0 relativity as in Habbo Hotel to 100% relativity as in tagteachernet); Participants familiarity with different software used in online communities. The ratio of applications complexity and sophistication varied from simple open source software (e.g. yahoo.groups) to software from production companies (e.g. commkit, specifically designed software for massive online communities); Accessibility to the focus groups (the author is an e-mint member). The discussion took place from the 14th of April 2004 to the 30th of June 2004. The aims were (a) the identification of experts opinion on legitimate peripheral participation, focused on issues for sociability and usability for what managers suggest about engagement and contribution; (b) the evaluation of informal learning abilities stages for informal and consensus community knowledge building and (c) the evaluation of the evaluation criteria catalogue. Qualitative Research Methodology was used, based on content analysis (Bauer, 2000) under the twofold perspective of discourse analysis (Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis, Herring, 2001) and empirical linguistic analysis (Herring, 2001, 2004). The findings were developed and analysed based on the evaluation criteria catalogue. Brief description is following in Table 2: Table 2: Sociability and Usability Evaluation for E-mint
Sociability Elements People- Purposes Beliefs > Community Culture influence interactions within the community (Ewan, Dorine). Sense of shared identity - Descriptions of domains of interest > who its audience is and what their needs are (Anne). > Open discussions, often COI's, with many members will have higher proportions of lurkers (Nabil). SU-ID New Users - Members Profiles Directory > We also have profiling and allow people to use profiles to bring groups together (Ian). Locations News (ongoing activities, changes, world news) n/a on a webpage but within messages Groupz-ware e-mint.org website, Association of Online Community Managers Profiling system clickable members n/a Tracking locations n/a Updated Newsletters

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupz-ware. In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2005, 22-27 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA) (in press). Community Mutual Relationships, Behavioural Patterns: Networks, Messages architectural pattern (53,1% of the messages) Tips Work-related interactions Work-related > managers (who) need to accept that people will say what they want to say, when they Topics Jobs are ready to say it (Rebecca). n/a HCI Design Regular Contribution Dialogue > I can fully appreciate the need to slightly push, bribe and encourage delurking when consistent, there is no conversation taking place, but is it always essential within a 'thriving' controllable, community? (Chris). predictable), Newcomers - Shortcomings meaningful Having first looked at the h2g2 page doesn't in itself make you a lurker, but would sub-groups produce a disproportionally high difference between unique users visiting, and users SUWord filter posting (Rob). REL Lurking Live Tracking > if the person is not revealing his/herself, how do we know? (Ewan). System, > the majority of the members (Anne). Ask an reasons for Expert, >people hate and are petrified to speak in public Synchronous >many experts in the community create hesitation and >members are used to messages from the same posters Asynchronous >members wait until there is something relevant to their interests Provision of >the nature and the culture of the community are central Help >there is a natural burn-out of the community Search and advanced search Search Input > there's lots of work to be done on structuring on-line conversations, not just to make Output -the readable, but also reference-able, searchable, indexable, etc. (Graham). Thesaurus Common stories Inside jokes > Becs (am I getting any work done today? Dont askmy boss is on the e-mint listserv).(Rebecca) HCI dialogue Jargon design [Nobody asked what a lurker is] (consistent, Perspectives SU> our members are naturally isolated (often the only person that all their workmates are controllable, predictable), LAN looking to, so the sense of membership that evidence of other people with similar meaningful problems brings is a good in its own right (John). sub-groups Analogies, examples Word filter > We used to run one forum for American nationals; and another forum for British nationals (Ewan). Explanations > So I closed the email. This deprives Chris of a response, closes of the conversation (if no one else chooses to respond) and stops the traffic on the subject altogether (Ewan). Good Registration registration > I think getting them to register is probably an equal barrier (Robin Hamman). It was SUSystem, Easyfrustrating for our community managers seeing so many lurkers and knowing that the PRA to-use, Part of majority of them *wanted* to register but couldn't quite bring themselves to do so Profiling (Ewan). From a person Introduction & induction .We do our best to convert the lurkers to users by showing - by example - that new or a bot, within two days after users are welcomed and appreciated: (Ewan). registration Authentic welcome Membership Management Control of > So, while it's important to respect lurker's wishes to lurk, it's just as important to create community relationship with community members and get to know them There's not much I know access, of that you can do about a community where you're not at liberty to form any type of participation relationship with the members, individually (Rebecca). and roles Privacy and Security Private chat, > Privacy and invasion issues do follow the community culture It's not actually invading Members your privacy per se - but then this view depends entirely on your perspective of area privacy/invasion (Ewan). Monitoring Levels of participation Users, > So if you wanted to involve the 6 people about X out of the community of 400, you Anonymous can do so, and take it Secret (Ian). Posting > maybe to respond to a contribution anonymously (Will). Roles Awards/ > Volunteers as seem to be unnaturally keen (John) in whatever they do, are Ranking for community members. They are able to help both community leaders and members volunteers Shared practices, Transfer of Innovations, Methods and Techniques Area of > Our community (U...org.uk) such impenetrably specialised conversations that lurkers Expertise become every bit as vital to cultivate as posters (John).

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupz-ware. In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2005, 22-27 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA) (in press). Control Moderation Netiquette contributions > Yes, there needs to be an awareness that if/when a person decides to 'join-in' they and content, are not going to be bullied or laughed at (Chris Rollings). mediation > Empower the loyal, mature, responsible members with basic tools to deal with Ignoring problem people... If you can't empower members in this way, empower all members by facility by giving them IGNORE tools. The IGNORE tools are the most effective tools online - wish name and we had them for offline communities!... Ignoring posts by member name, ignoring chat user name by member name, etc. (Rebecca). One way Communication Votes, Polls, > Votes, polls and surveys giving the feeling that the lurkers can feel that they've Surveys contributed something too (Will). HCI Dialogue Interactions Design 47 nodes of interactions for this cluster Experts Gurus Ask the Expert discussions (analyst, journalist, financial guru) (Robin) expert Exhibition Artifacts Projects [Consensus Knowledge Building is the Abstract Product of Discussion] External Community Development - Promotion of Community Expertise collaboration >Videoconferencing for community building (Miranda Mowbray). tools Flow of information [evident] Easy-to-use Indexation and Conversations quickly to the point [evident] classification Problems framed quickly [evident] Upload, wikis, SU-CK Shared work space, collaboration tools whiteboards, Yahoo.groups mailing list blogs Community Knowledge Base Information > who among us doesn't want to share our knowledge? (Rebecca). architecture Synchronous Communications [not used] n/a SUCommunity and Personal Feedback [evident] Feedback EVA Discussion Assessment n/a Bookmark Sociability and Usability Assessment n/a Research Personalisation features n/a Customization U Easy Access Interface Memorability Ease of Learning n/a Navigation Live Tracking Monitoring Users n/a System SU-RE Social Network Analysis n/a Pajek, Content Discourse Analysis Community Knowledge Basis n/a Management SUCommunity Life Span Time Series ETC Time is a threefold issue (Ian) Design

Report: Different groupz-wares for online communities of interest were indexed based on sociability and usability and the basic characteristics were described: A. Before Registration: Informative front page following basic usability guidelines. B. Registration: Induction and training, Information about provision of help and support, Authentic welcome by live chat, videoconferencing, volunteers, chatbots, New users have to be monitored. C. After Registration Maintenance Initial one-way communication (votes, polls, surveys, newsletters) Follow up email One-way communication (Authentic welcome, Votes, polls and surveys, Anonymous posting) Use of volunteers. Volunteers as seem to be unnaturally keen and they are community members Detailed profiles Subgroups facility, Privacy and security (private chat), Ignoring facility by name and user name Discussion highlights as newsletters. Feeling of belonging to a community Use of meaningful Subgroups Frequency of viewed messages (members use to view the same messages, same threads) Expert discussions area. Expert discussions (analyst, journalist, financial guru) every week Creation of a community knowledge database (CKD) Indexation of the topics within the CKD Time is a threefold issue (members time on discussion, moderators time on members, life-span) Repetition of the Participation Process: Technical support and suggestions to the developers and moderators

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupz-ware. In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2005, 22-27 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA) (in press).

3.3. Stage III: Software


Several web-based evaluation contexts exist for eLearning software. The focus group suggested to take upon the existed ones and most of them suggested EduTools. The criteria were based on technical specifications, instructional design values, tools and features, ease of use and accessibility, potential for collaboration and IMS metadata standards compliance. As such, we explored the findings by developing and analysing the data based on the evaluation criteria catalogue.

3.4. Stage VI: Users Recommendations


Fourteen out of 61 subjects (22,95%, ) from the Greek Primary Teachers Association for the Valorization of ICT in Education (EEEP, formed in December 2003), responded to a questionnaire with 22 open and closed questions in July and August 2004. The members use an emailing list based on Moodle Open Source Learning Management system. The aims of the study were to test the Sociability and Usability Criteria Model as well as investigate engagement and contribution in depth, as part of LPP, Informal Learning and Consensus Knowledge Building. The aims were (a) the identification legitimate peripheral participation, focused on issues for sociability and usability for what teachers suggest about engagement and contribution; (b) the evaluation of informal learning abilities stages for informal and consensus community knowledge building and (c) the evaluation of the evaluation criteria catalogue. Qualitative Research Methodology was used, based on content analysis (Bauer, 2000) under the twofold perspective of discourse analysis (Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis, Herring, 2001) and empirical linguistic analysis (Herring, 2001). The findings were developed and analysed based on the evaluation criteria catalogue.

3.5. Discussion - Synthesis of findings


The system requirements support the needed management. Some of the described properties already exist in Moodle. As such, the following interventions are recommended to take place as part of the treatment for the main study. Table 2: Implications for the Main Study Synthesis
IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT Induction and training - Encouragement to participate and introduce themselves by the moderators Advice for good replies - One and two ways of communication - Private chat-rooms Feedback from the moderators and the community Introduction of hot topics related to members interests Stressing Netiquette Ask the Expert facility, Use of volunteers Continuous help and support especially the first week Target-oriented activities (e.g. projects, publications) Facilitation of observation by provision of relevant material (FAQ, publications, messages archives) Discussion highlights as newsletters IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN Welcome note (live chat, chatbots) Informative First Page, Site-Map Monitoring - live tracking system, Initial one-way communication (chatbot, votes, polls, surveys, newsletters Internal connection between for Discussion Forum and Webmail system Topics and Messages Indexation Content Management System Integration of Pajek for Social Network Analysis Videoconferencing streaming media

Conclusion

U-D+ has the potential to help directing activities in Interaction Design. The findings up to now revealed the following strengths: (a) simplicity and functionality; (b) it is a process-based framework that creates close examination of both social networks and interventions as well as causal inference for sociability and usability; (c) it considers both the individual and social networks; (d) new theories could be created in each stage; (e) it suggests clear research design and data analysis; (f) it is consisted with decision making processes; and (g) it is adjustable to future trends. As this project is a high intensity project, further evaluation is needed in order to

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupz-ware. In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2005, 22-27 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA) (in press).

explore tools, mechanisms and techniques that will help us as Interaction Designers to help the community in an ultimate collaborative and democratic way.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Sara Martin, Christopher Lai Khee Choong and Sophi Danis for the unlimited source of inspiration. Special thanks to all the members of the communities for their cooperation, patience, insights and the fantastic time with them and their permission to use their messages, their ideas and their names.

References
ACM SIGCHI, The Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction Curriculum Development Group (1992). Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction. Retrieved February 8, 2004, from http://sigchi.org/cdg/. Aristotle, Per Anima. Ancient text and Translation by Christodoulou, I.S. (2003). Athens: Zitros. Bandura, A. (1978).The self-system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33, 344-358. Bauer, M. W. (2000). Classical content analysis : a review. In M. W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. A practical handbook (pp.131-151). New Delhi: Sage. Bjerknes, G., Pelle E. & Morten K. (Eds.). (1987). Computers and Democracy - A Scandinavian Challenge. Aldershot: Gower. Blomberg, J. L., & Henderson, A. (1990). Reflections on participatory design: Lessons from the Trillium Experience. Proceedings of CHI 90, 353-359. New York, NY: ACM. Boyd, D. (2005). Autistic Social Software. Talk at BayCHI. Palo Alto, California: February 8, 2005. Cohen, L. Manion, L. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th Edition). London (UK) Routledge Commkit, Online Community software. Retrieved February 27, 2005, from http://commkit.com EduTools, Retrieved February 27, 2005, from http://www.edutools.info/course/compare/index.jsp. E-Mint. Online Community Professionals. Retrieved February 27, 2005, from http://www.emint.org/ EEEP. Retrieved February 27, 2005, from http://www.eeep.gr Gould, J.D., Boies, S.J., Levy, S., Richards, J.T. & Schoonard, J. (1987). The 1984 Olympic Message System: a test of behavioral principles of system design. ACM, 30,(9): 758 769 (1987). Habbo Hotel. Virtual Hotel. Retrieved February 27, 2005 from http://www.habbohotel.com/ Hartson, H.R & Hix, D. (1989). Human-Computer Interface Development: Concepts and Systems for Its Management. ACM, 21(1): 5-92(1989). Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.). Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. Hamilton (Eds). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 612-634. ISO FDIS 9241-11. Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs), Part 11: Guidance on Usability Specification and Measures. Technical report, 1997. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating Constructivist Learning. Educational Technology, 31(9). Lambropoulos, N. (2005). Sociability and Usability for Contribution based on Situated Informal Learning and Consensus Knowledge Building in Online Communities. In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th HCI, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA) (in press). Lambropoulos, N. (2004). Greek Teachers' Online Community of Practice: who we are, what we do and how. ED-MEDIA, the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Lugano, Switzerland, 2004 (2014-19). Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning - Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Livingstone, D. W. (2000). Exploring the icebergs of adult learning: findings of the first canadian survey of informal learning practices. NALL Working Paper #10-2000 (OISE/UT). Mayhew, D.J. (2002) Requirements specifications within the usability engineering life cycle. The humancomputer interaction handbook. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.. Muller, M.J., Tudor, L.G., Wildman, D.M., White, E.A., Root, R.W., Dayton, T., Carr, R., Diekmann, B., and Dykstra-Erickson, E.A. (1995). Bifocal tools for scenarios and representations in participatory activities with users. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Scenario-based design for human-computer interaction. New York: Wiley. Muller, M. J. (1991). PICTIVE: Proceedings of CHI 91, 225-231. New York, NY: ACM.

Lambropoulos, N. (2005). User-Designer HCI Research Model for Online Communities Groupz-ware. In the Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability and Internationalization, in the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2005, 22-27 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (LEA) (in press).

Nielsen, J. (1999). Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity. Indianapolis, Indiana: New Riders. Piaget, J. (1970) Piagets Theory. In P.H. Mussed (Ed) Carmichaels Manual of Child Psychology, third edition, volume 1. New York: Wiley. (7033-32). Preece, J., Rogers, Y. & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. Sanson-Fisher, R. (2004). Multiple Baseline. In the Workshop on Research Designs for Complex, Multi-level Health Interventions and Programs. May 4 -5, 2004. Retrieved June 15, 2004 from http://obssr.od.nih.gov/Conf_Wkshp/Complex%20Interventions%20Workshop/Sanson-Fisher.ppt. Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning Theories. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Shadish, WR, Cook, TD, & Campbell, DT (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston : Houghton-Mifflin. Shneiderman, B. & Plaisant, C. (2004) Designing the User Interface. New York: Addison Wesley (4th Edition). Skinner, B.F. (1965). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press. Tagteachernet. Retrieved February 27, 2005, from http://www.tagteacher.net/ Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Winograd, T. (1997). From computing machinery to interaction design. In Denning, P., & Metcalfe, R. (Eds.), Beyond calculation: The next fifty years of computing, (pp. 149-162). New York: Springer-Verlag. Yourdon, E. (2001) Managing High-Intensity Internet Projects. Prentice-Hall: London.

You might also like