48
Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays @smunson, @emirose, @presnick

Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Two public display systems, with different methods of posting, were deployed over several years. One, the Thank You Board, was designed to give people an outlet specifically for publicly thanking and acknowledging others in the community. The other, SI Display, showed any Twitter post directed to the display and did not have explicit usage guidelines. People preferred the flexibility of the latter, but ambiguity about its purpose and norms of usage persisted even six months after deployment and made some people hesitant to post. Also, using Twitter as the posting mechanism facilitated participation for some but also created barriers for those not using Twitter and for Twitter users who were wary of mixing their professional and non-professional contexts.

Citation preview

Page 1: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays @smunson, @emirose, @presnick

Page 2: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Matt Rife,

Flickr: Confidence, Comely Flickr: meddygarnet

Page 3: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

IM Here (Huang et al 2004) C3C (McCarthy et al 2008)

Notification Collage (Greenberg and Rounding 2001) Plasma Poster Network (Churchill et al 2003)

Page 4: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Matt Rife,

Flickr: Confidence, Comely Flickr: meddygarnet

this study

Page 5: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Matt Rife,

Flickr: Confidence, Comely Flickr: meddygarnet

Thank You Board

Highly directed, structured use; post from official website.

this study

Page 6: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Matt Rife,

Flickr: Confidence, Comely Flickr: meddygarnet

Thank You Board

Highly directed, structured use; post from official website.

this study

SI Display

Use le open to interpretation by community, post using existing social network site (Twitter)

Page 7: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

the site: school of information, university of michigan

1.5 miles

Page 8: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

the site: school of information, university of michigan

School of Information North PhD students, staff, faculty ank You Board: 17 inch display in entryway SI Display: large touchscreen in lunch room

West Hall Masters students, staff, faculty, administration ank You Board: 17 inch display in main stairwell SI Display: 17 inch display in main stairwell, large touchscreen in student lounge

Page 9: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Thank You Board SI Display

Page 10: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

ank You Board

•  Clear expectation for how it would be used

•  Post via web form

•  Structured input

•  Randomly show a message from the 10 most recent, every 6 seconds

Page 11: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

SI Display

•  No expectations for how it would/should be used.

•  Post via Twitter (@sidisplay)

•  Unstructured input (except for Twitter limitations)

•  Cycle through 8 most recent messages, or all from the last 24 hours, whichever is greater.

Morgan  Keys  making  so/ware  available:  h6ps://github.com/morgankeys/ATdisplay  

Page 12: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Methods

Page 13: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Analysis of posts

196 posts from 100 posters 25 February 2007 – 8 August 2008

251 posts from 58 posters 5 November 2009 – 2 April 2010

0 20 40 60 80

100 120

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

Pos

ts

Page 14: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Code posts by category and audience

Analysis of posts

Category ank You Board SI Display Event Announcements <1% 32% Congratulations / praise 6% 6% anks 100% 4% Greetings 2% 9% Questions & Discussion prompts <1% 14% Information sharing 2% 34% Response to another post 1% 8% Referencing the display 1% 16% Directed to the display 0% 6% To a specific person or people 57% 8% To a specific SI subgroup 17% 8%

Page 15: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Code posts by category and audience

Analysis of posts

Category ank You Board SI Display Event Announcements <1% 32% Congratulations / praise 6% 6% anks 100% 4% Greetings 2% 9% Questions & Discussion prompts <1% 14% Information sharing 2% 34% Response to another post 1% 8% Referencing the display 1% 16% Directed to the display 0% 6% To a specific person or people 57% 8% To a specific SI subgroup 17% 8%

Page 16: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Code posts by category and audience

Analysis of posts

Category ank You Board SI Display Event Announcements <1% 32% Congratulations / praise 6% 6% anks 100% 4% Greetings 2% 9% Questions & Discussion prompts <1% 14% Information sharing 2% 34% Response to another post 1% 8% Referencing the display 1% 16% Directed to the display 0% 6% To a specific person or people 57% 8% To a specific SI subgroup 17% 8%

Adam says thanks to [whoever put this monitor to use] for having a clue (Now, can we set up some displays to non-invasively broadcast pressing questions a la Zephyr and stuff?)

know how many links are saved in delicious or how i would access such information?

Page 17: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Code posts by category and audience

Analysis of posts

Category ank You Board SI Display Event Announcements <1% 32% Congratulations / praise 6% 6% anks 100% 4% Greetings 2% 9% Questions & Discussion prompts <1% 14% Information sharing 2% 34% Response to another post 1% 8% Referencing the display 1% 16% Directed to the display 0% 6% To a specific person or people 57% 8% To a specific SI subgroup 17% 8%

Tobias says thanks to SI Career Services for Helping students manage job searches: Starting from resume creation etc. SI Career Services is one of the strongest services available to students at SI!

New Oxford American Dictionary 2009 Word of the Year: "Unfriend"

Page 18: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Code posts by category and audience

Analysis of posts

Category ank You Board SI Display Event Announcements <1% 32% Congratulations / praise 6% 6% anks 100% 4% Greetings 2% 9% Questions & Discussion prompts <1% 14% Information sharing 2% 34% Response to another post 1% 8% Referencing the display 1% 16% Directed to the display 0% 6% To a specific person or people 57% 8% To a specific SI subgroup 17% 8%

aw poor @sidisplay. I know what it's like to feel unrefreshed!

Page 19: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Code posts by category and audience

Analysis of posts

Category ank You Board SI Display Event Announcements <1% 32% Congratulations / praise 6% 6% anks 100% 4% Greetings 2% 9% Questions & Discussion prompts <1% 14% Information sharing 2% 34% Response to another post 1% 8% Referencing the display 1% 16% Directed to the display 0% 6% To a specific person or people 57% 8% To a specific SI subgroup 17% 8%

Page 20: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Participants n = 14

9 masters students 3 staff members 2 PhD students

13 with Twitter accounts

6 recalled the ank You Board 7 had posted to SI Display

Semistructured Interviews

Questions about: •  How they used the displays •  How they thought others

should use them •  Likes / dislikes about each

Page 21: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Results

Page 22: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Results Designated use vs. open ethos Twitter as posting mechanism |

Page 23: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Results Designated use vs. open ethos Twitter as posting mechanism |

Page 24: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Participants valued flexibility of SI Display

“open ethos” (P6) “serendipity” of unexpected things (P13)

Page 25: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Participants valued flexibility of SI Display

“open ethos” (P6) “serendipity” of unexpected things (P13)

… but had concerns about using it inappropriately.

“I guess I would feel better if there were more established norms about it. If we knew more about what its purpose was and what are the goals and how people should use it.” (P13)

“people are unsure how it’s supposed to be used … and because people, I’m a firm believer that if people don’t want to offend other people, they won’t do something they think might offend them and that might be use the board in a way they don’t think other people think it’s intended to be used for.” (P7)

Page 26: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

issues with how SI Display was introduced

uncertainty about purpose

“I have no freaking clue. I really don’t.” (P9)

emphasis on usability over uses no example uses given

You may have noticed that the [display] is displaying public thank yous. You can thank someone, too! Just go to http://si.umich.edu/thanks.

How to post &

“[the displays] can be used for sharing short, public messages.”

Page 27: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

issues with how SI Display was introduced

uncertainty about purpose

“I have no freaking clue. I really don’t.” (P9)

emphasis on usability over uses no example uses given

Page 28: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

issues with how SI Display was introduced

uncertainty about purpose

“I have no freaking clue. I really don’t.” (P9)

emphasis on usability over uses no example uses given

Couldn’t remember all locations

Not sure if it was for students, the entire SI community, or for external visitors to see

uncertainty about audience

but norms did not develop over the months of use

Page 29: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

issues with how SI Display was introduced

uncertainty about purpose

“I have no freaking clue. I really don’t.” (P9)

emphasis on usability over uses no example uses given

Couldn’t remember all locations

Not sure if it was for students, the entire SI community, or for external visitors to see

uncertainty about audience

but norms did not develop over the months of use

Page 30: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Results Designated use vs. open ethos Twitter as posting mechanism |

Page 31: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

ank You Board had required too much memory for how to post and these steps were too disconnected from seeing the display

SI Display used Twitter to make posting easier, but did require that posters have a Twitter account

Page 32: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Twitter as posting mechanism: easier, but not without issues

Further confounded audience: Twitter users or broader? Twitter syntax made some posts hard to read.

Sometimes hard to link Twitter usernames and avatars with identity in community.

Some community members did not want to use Twitter on principle. Others did not want to reveal their personal Twitter account to their professional colleagues.

Feelings of exclusion for some community members, while others felt it was more inclusive.

Page 33: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Twitter as posting mechanism: easier, but not without issues

Further confounded audience: Twitter users or broader? Twitter syntax made some posts hard to read.

Sometimes hard to link Twitter usernames and avatars with identity in community

Some community members did not want to use Twitter on principle. Others did not want to reveal their personal Twitter account to their professional colleagues.

Feelings of exclusion for some community members, while others felt it was more inclusive.

Page 34: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Twitter as posting mechanism: easier, but not without issues

Further confounded audience: Twitter users or broader? Twitter syntax made some posts hard to read.

Sometimes hard to link Twitter usernames and avatars with identity in community

Some community members did not want to use Twitter on principle. Others did not want to reveal their personal Twitter account to their professional colleagues.

Feelings of exclusion for some community members, while others felt it was more inclusive.

Page 35: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Twitter as posting mechanism: easier, but not without issues

Further confounded audience: Twitter users or broader? Twitter syntax made some posts hard to read.

Sometimes hard to link Twitter usernames and avatars with identity in community

Some community members did not want to use Twitter on principle. Others did not want to reveal their personal Twitter account to their professional colleagues.

Feelings of exclusion for some community members, while others felt it was more inclusive.

Page 36: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Twitter as posting mechanism: easier, but not without issues

Further confounded audience: Twitter users or broader? Twitter syntax made some posts hard to read.

Sometimes hard to link Twitter usernames and avatars with identity in community

Some community members did not want to use Twitter on principle. Others did not want to reveal their personal Twitter account to their professional colleagues.

Feelings of exclusion for some community members, while others felt it was more inclusive.

Page 37: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Twitter as posting mechanism: easier, but not without issues

Further confounded audience: Twitter users or broader? Twitter syntax made some posts hard to read.

Sometimes hard to link Twitter usernames and avatars with identity in community

Some community members did not want to use Twitter on principle. Others did not want to reveal their personal Twitter account to their professional colleagues.

Feelings of exclusion for some community members, while others felt it was more inclusive.

Page 38: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Design Implications Authoritative vs. User Interpretations

Content Lifespan

Twitter as posting mechanism

Social Context

Page 39: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Design Implications Authoritative vs. User Interpretations

Content Lifespan

Twitter as posting mechanism

Social Context

Page 40: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

With SI Display, we created discomfort by going too far toward emphasizing usability over use (Sengers and Gaver 2006). Confounded by a lack of reification of community expectations; no clear feedback process. Recommendations: •  Introduce display with suggested uses (& an invitation to

use it other ways) •  Post discussion prompts / content invitations to Twitter or

the display •  Add a feedback mechanism (voting posts up and/or down)

Page 41: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Design Implications Authoritative vs. User Interpretations

Content Lifespan

Twitter as posting mechanism

Social Context

Page 42: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

SI Display had more time sensitive content, but the “staleness” of outdated announcements became an issue. Recommendation: Parse posts for time; filter out dates in the past.

Page 43: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Design Implications Authoritative vs. User Interpretations

Content Lifespan

Twitter as posting mechanism

Social Context

Page 44: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Twitter as posting mechanism easier for most barrier for non-Twitterers jargon mixing contexts

Recommendations: •  continue using, but give non-Twitter users a way to post

(web form, SMS, etc). •  Arguments for accepting some jargon and syntax, or

filtering it out / replacing it

Page 45: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Design Implications Authoritative vs. User Interpretations

Content Lifespan

Twitter as posting mechanism

Social Context

Page 46: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Social context Where are the displays? Who will see them? Mixing of audiences

Recommendations: •  Map of displays, or video links between them. (also not

without problems!) •  Control over to which display one posts, e.g.,:

–  @sidisplay: to all of them –  @sistudents: Master’s student lounge –  @sistafffac: staff, faculty, and PhD student lunchroom –  @sipublic: displays in public spaces

Page 47: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Social context how to drive adoption? where are displays? who will look at them?

Recommendations: •  Contests at launch or to drive particular kinds of posts •  Consider adding maps of display locations or video feeds

of who is looking at them to make audience less “imagined”

•  Keep displays from reaching too broad of an audience

Conclusions Designated use vs. open ethos: open ethos preferred over structured content, but can go too far in not specifying use; need to make potential users feel comfortable with appropriateness of their posts. Need for reification. Twitter as posting mechanism: appreciated and easier than the ank You Board form, but also caused some feelings of exclusion that should be mitigated in future deployments.

Page 48: Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays (CSCW 2011)

Thanks and Tweets: Comparing Two Public Displays

Sean Munson [email protected] @smunson Emily Rosengren [email protected] @emirose Paul Resnick [email protected] @presnick

anks to Erica Willar and Alex Burrell, research assistants Jim Leach, Michael Hess, and SI Computing for helping deploy the displays Morgan Keys, for continuing to push this forward Funded by the National Science Foundation under grant IIS-0916099.