| Monday, August 30, 2004 |  |
| More on Intimacy Gradients |
 On the subject of Intimacy Gradients in Social Software, Chris Allen expands the discussion with much good detail. Like, directly from the horses mouth, from A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander:Pattern #127 - Intimacy Gradient:That's very lucid. But however much it makes sense for physical buildings, it might not be useful in the same way for online spaces. As I mentioned earlier, the ability to easily link deep into just about anything short-circuits any hope for a gradual build-up of intimacy, as one works oneself deeper into more private areas. If you can go there in one link it might not feel any more intimate than the places intended to be very public. Adina Levin also returns with some new angles: I suspect that the design principles for intimacy gradient are going to be different online than in 3d, and efforts to mirror 3d privacy patterns literally will be ineffective, just as interfaces mimicking 3d stores and offices don't work.And she mentions some of the things that might mark intimacy in online "places", like the presence of personal information, pictures, related sites, recent changes, and more. All stuff that elaborates the context, and makes the participants more real. But, hm, is that really intimacy? Maybe. Makes me think, at least... Calling it "markers" reframes the discussion a bit. In a house, it is not a requirement that the private spaces REALLY are harder to get to than the public spaces. But the sequencing and the appearance of them being more hidden will make you feel like respecting the arrangement. If you really wanted to, you might very well crash in through the bedroom window faster than you could walk through the entry hall, the living room, and the bedroom door. But all those elements act as markers that tell you that it wouldn't be right, and most normal people respect that. We could say that the space and the walls and the sequencing of rooms merely are markers. Which hint at a certain meaning of that which they mark. Like an implied meaning of privacy or public-ness. Now, the object is how to establish markers in online settings that will imply certain kinds of meaning to visitors, and inspire certain types of behavior. For example: Is it an intimate place where one can talk more openly and feel safe doing so without being attacked? Or is it a public place where one naturally would have one's guards up a bit, and expect to be accosted by random strangers? Is it a place where one can leave some things around, and expect to find them again when one comes back? Or is it a place where thieves and vandals are to be expected, so one shouldn't count on anything staying in place? Is it a place of continued, sustained work, gradually progressing, so you can come and check on progress at regular intervals? Or is it a place that is in the moment, that you need to experience while you're there, and it might be totally different next time you come back? It is a place that is owned, somebody's property, or is there at least somebody obviously on-duty, taking care of it? In that case you might expect that they'd quickly clean off any grafitti you leave, so it might not be worth the trouble. Or if the ownership is too vague, or nobody's taking care of it, maybe you'll expect you can get away with whatever you do there. Does it seem to be a place where important and serious work gets done? Or something that is just to pass time, and of no real consequence? I can think of markers that indicate these various things. But an instant wrench thrown into any such attempts is the possibility that some automatic spam bot will not care, and is able to post anything whatsoever to any page that has a form for submitting something. It is a bit like when you leave your cellphone on in the movie theatre. Somebody who doesn't know where they're calling might disturb the peace. But there are solutions to that, of course. You might require registration and login, or make people type in characters from a graphic. That's probably a problem that can be overcome. So, what kinds of markers apply to real people? The picture and name of a caretaker of a page will easily mark that the page is being taken care of, and indicates that it probably isn't just a free-for-all. Example: an about.com page that has an owner/editor. Indications of goals, rules, a time-line, milestones, accomplishments, outstanding issues, etc., will indicate that somebody is trying to do real work there. Example: a sourceforge open source programming project. An indication of a page being your personal page, like your preferences or a My[Something] page will mark that only you can change it, and that it is safe to do so, and whatever you do will be the same when you come back. Example: your Ryze profile. A requirement of registration, and a list of members of the group which is rather small will tend to indicate that the space is somewhat intimate and that one safely can talk openly. That is often false, as even known people might disagree with you and attack you, so those are not very good markers. That one is harder. A blog will surprisingly often indicate a fairly intimate and safe space, at least for the owner, despite that usually anybody can post comments. Because there is one owner, and they are in control, and you get to know a lot about them, so you can fairly easily determine what it is safe to say to them. One marker is a large amount of fairly personal and consistent information. As to group-oriented spaces, there are more difficulties. The best markers for whether it is a fairly safe and intimate place is probably a continous and coherent body of work over some time. I.e. the group has worked with a certain focus for some time, and you can see what has happened, and the tone people have communicated with. If there's then also a visible care-taker, and a required registration and visible member list, and some clear rules, even better. But if there's no focus, or the activity isn't consistent, or it isn't clear who's there, it is probably less safe and intimate. But that's all a little too fuzzy. Hard one. Clearly, context needs to be visible to be able to ascertain how intimate the space is. How long has the space been here? Who's here? How long have they been here? How much have they contributed exactly here? What are they working on? Are they working together? What has been accomplished? Where is it? What is projected for the future? The more detail there is, the more consistent it is, and the more all participants are inter-connected with each other, the more intimate the space probably is. [ Patterns | 2004-08-30 23:20 | 4 comments | PermaLink ] More > |