I use your ser­vice for pretty spe­cific things, usu­ally remem­ber­ing quotes I’ve heard when I’m at a con­fer­ence. I real­ize this isn’t why you cre­ated your ser­vice, but unin­tended con­se­quences and all. So for me, it would be really great if you could let me tag my twits. I know that sounds kind of insane and gran­u­lar, and the folks that don’t like Twit­ter will think that’s just crazy talk, but it would allow me to do things like aggre­gate the great Anil Dash quotes I heard at this week’s Microsoft Social Com­put­ing Sym­po­sium (most of which I didn’t even get recorded). ‘Cause believe me, the guy is just bril­liant and he rat­tles them off one after the other, on the backchan­nel and every­where else. And maybe then I could cre­ate my own lit­tle ran­dom Dash quote gen­er­a­tor or something.

So unless I’m already miss­ing a way I might oth­er­wise do this, if you could just imple­ment one more way for me to cat­e­go­rize my lifestream, that would be really great.

Thanks. Your pal,
Jenny
(who is blog­ging this sit­ting a foot away from Michael Gor­man in the Louisville air­port — heh; who knew his ring­tone is “when the saints go march­ing in”.…)

No tags for this post.

It’s rare when a library topic can gen­er­ate more dis­cus­sion than some­thing as big as Talk Like a Pirate Day, but damn if the Mud­flap mar­ket­ing cam­paign from Wyoming’s libraries didn’t do just that in library­land. Talk about going where your users are.…

At first I thought, “Hmmmm…not sure about this.” But then I decided I like the idea of turn­ing the image on its head and repur­pos­ing it for our own uses. It def­i­nitely gets your atten­tion and makes you think for a sec­ond. At least, it made me stop and think, and I cer­tainly won’t be for­get­ting Wyoming’s libraries now. More info about the cam­paign here.

orig­i­nally posted by WyoLibrarian

No tags for this post.

Mar­tin Wat­ten­berg — ManyEyes

http://www.many-eyes.com/

part of the goal was to democ­ra­tize visu­al­iza­tion
saw a lot of polit­i­cal usage
saw cit­i­zen activism
also saw play
eg, tag cloud of Shakespeare’s favorite words was used to high­light spe­cific words to cre­ate poetic phrases
blogs as a social “petri dish“
maybe the goal is con­nec­tiv­ity, placed on blog where con­ver­sa­tion can be pushed
there’s some com­pet­i­tive upload­ing now that is polit­i­cal
have a very con­ser­v­a­tive per­son on the site right now who is chal­leng­ing them with what could be con­sid­ered a rant in a dif­fer­ent for­mat about how you inter­act with data

you are a blog­ger — Anil Dash
we don’t get far out­side of our world, and as a result, we don’t cre­ate tools out­side of it
blog­ging is hip-hop
hip hop is cur­rently dri­ving our cul­ture
links are beats
the core of the behav­ior we have is sam­pling; is still con­sid­ered sub­ver­sive
both are still seen as not being a legit­i­mate art form
Apple — rip | mix | burn
turnta­bles out­sell gui­tars
we’re also not buy­ing print­ing presses a lot
the reac­tion when hip hop came out is “that’s not music“
we had the same reac­tion to blogs — it’s not media
what we can learn is that we can see where the threats are going to come from

we link to con­tent that even­tu­ally gets pulled down
the com­pa­nies frown on the fact that you are the vehi­cle of dis­tri­b­u­tion
they will rail­road us if we let them
hip hop is more than just rap — it’s freestyling
graf­fiti is OpenID
the abil­ity to be entre­pre­neur­ial
out­siders don’t get it — we have to pay atten­tion
vio­lence and misog­yny are what rap­pers were knwon for
we’re seen as medium, not man­ners, by out­siders
have to think about the impli­ca­tions of tools
“con­scious” is a genre

Justin Kan — Justin.tv
started out as a 24/7 broad­cast of his life to the inter­net
at first, walked around try­ing to enter­tain peo­ple 24/7
was like a roller coaster ride to inter­net fame
first les­son he learned is that there are a lot of ass­holes on the inter­net when they had the police bust in on him at home
build­ing a plat­form to let any­one do this online — almost ready to open it up to any­one to live broad­cast
thinks we’ll see a huge num­ber of video broad­casts that will vio­late copyright

Teen Sec­ond Life at a Glance (Don’t touch mah bukkit) — Lane Law­ley
showed his house in TSL
rea­son #1 he can’t live on the ground in TSL
1 — pub­lic school; thinks schools should pro­vide bet­ter tech­no­log­i­cal edu­ca­tion; he still hasn’t been taught Pow­er­point in school yet, maybe it will hap­pen when he’s 18
2 — lack of adver­tise­ments; HTML is mak­ing a come­back in his world because of MySpace

com­mu­ni­ties in TSL
– script­ing; very few good scripters in TSL
– build­ing; slightly larger com­mu­nity because eas­ier to learn; get a sense of cre­ation with­out hav­ing to learn as much
– social: on TSL to do things they do in RL (shop, be with friends, etc.)
– edu­ca­tional: usu­ally owned by adults; teens in social com­mu­ni­ties have no inter­est in the edu­ca­tional one

inter­ac­tion
– script­ing + building

judg­ment day — the day Teen Sec­ond Life res­i­dents turn 18, and are trans­ferred to main SL
the sys­tem is sup­posed to do it, but it doesn’t hap­pen “overnight“
teens look for­ward to get­ting on the main grid because it’s so much larger

Liz: her big frus­tra­tion is that she can’t play SL with her son; no social­iza­tion into the big­ger world
“it takes a guild to raise a child” — how impor­tant it is that her son can learn from adults, men­tors, peers in one place
so she doesn’t play in SL because she can’t be in either world with her son

Ben Gross — How Many

How many?
– email addresses do you have?
– IM net­works are you on?
– phone num­bers do you have?
– logins to web­sites do you have?

why do peo­ple have mul­ti­ple iden­ti­fiers?
it’s com­mon­place and mun­dane to have all of these things now
sep­a­ra­tion of per­sonal and pro­fes­sional, sep­a­rat­ing out social groups
a cat­e­gory of “that’s my spam account,” which is really trusted and known ver­sus not trusted or not known
focus­ing atten­tion or lim­it­ing inter­rup­tion for your work
per­ma­nence and con­ti­nu­ity — your col­lege account is likely to out­live any ISP account

“the odds“
“I got my name“
peo­ple are more likely to remem­ber their pass­words because they use the same one on each ser­vice, whereas they’re unlikely to remem­ber their usernames/logins because they’re dif­fer­ent on each one

impli­ca­tions
– usabil­ity
– workarounds
– side effects
– secu­rity implications

Eliz­a­beth Churchill
inter­ested in cul­tures of pri­vacy and how we come to know what we’re allowed to share and what we’re not
me putting up my friend’s pic­ture is dif­fer­ent than her putting it up
how peo­ple man­age what they share with oth­ers
did some inter­views with peo­ple ask­ing if they under­stand pri­vacy set­tings in Flickr
chart of Flickr shar­ing by age
60% of the peo­ple didn’t change the defaults at all (which means 40% do)
1 in 12 doesn’t share pic­tures at all
younger peo­ple share more
chart of photo shar­ing by con­nect­ed­ness — the more you put in your pro­file, the more you tend to share your pic­tures
map visu­al­iz­ing shar­ing across the world
inter­ested in volatil­ity — what makes you take some­thing down
can you retract things?
how do our lit­era­cies develop around pri­vacy, shar­ing, etc.

Flickr is about:
– doc­u­ment­ing (per­sonal and col­lec­tive mem­ory)
– com­pe­ti­tion (sta­tus)
– affil­i­a­tion (group mem­ber­ship)
– learn­ing (emu­lat­ing)
– curiosity/voyeurism
– aware­ness (near and far)

No tags for this post.

Look­ing for Group — Kevin Slavin
if we spend time in the worlds of these games, what hap­pens when we extract these types of dynam­ics we’re used to in these worlds into the real world?
peo­ple who share space should share expe­ri­ences
it’s one of the pow­er­ful things the soft­ware we have should do
it’s about chang­ing the con­di­tions we’re in when we’re together

he lives in a co-op in Brook­lyn, lived there for 4 years before a cri­sis came up
before the cri­sis, he thought of the peo­ple who lived in the build­ing as neigh­bors; now as share­hold­ers
he set up a Yahoo group for them to help them all com­mu­ni­cate
“I broke my build­ing“
ter­mites appeared in one apart­ment — whose prob­lem is it?
paint­ing the walls — “this is where you see democ­racy fall to bits“
showed email mes­sages to the Yahoo Group
res­i­dents started writ­ing graf­fiti on the walls because the Yahoo group wasn’t anony­mous
there was no in-fighting until the Yahoo group
these types of groups let you tweak your iden­tity
email is how we work all day, so thinks they became their work iden­ti­ties at home because now they were using email to com­mu­ni­cate
took those iden­ti­ties out of the office and into every­day life
the end of role­less­ness — they were just neigh­bors until this, had no roles
email has rules that are dif­fer­ent than the rules of every­day life
there are rules of prox­im­ity that are fun­da­men­tally dif­fer­ent than how we express our­selves in email
the online rules broke the real world
what was removed was a sense of civil­ity — what did that?
the tone changed when it became one-to-many, rather than one-to-one; the com­mu­ni­ca­tion went pub­lic
they weren’t anony­mous, but they became their email selves, which has more to do with how they spend their day
Kevin sug­gested shut­ting down the list pretty quickly, but the oth­ers asked him not to (they felt like they were win­ning, etc.)
things only changed six months ago when a com­mon event caused suf­fer­ing for every­one and it wasn’t any one person’s fault — that’s when they became civil again

Any­thing but Rou­tine: Games and the Post-Bureaucratic Insti­tu­tion — Thomas Mal­aby
what hap­pens when an orga­ni­za­tion tries to run itself like a game
bureau­cracy
every moment will fit into a category

what we mean by rules (sources of con­straint)
– laws (con­tracts)
– archi­tec­ture
– social con­ven­tion
– the market

games also use these forms of con­trol, too
they are sup­posed to gen­er­ate inde­ter­mi­nate out­comes; no one knows ahead of time

Sec­ond Life
Lin­den Labs is in an unusual posi­tion on this con­trol because they don’t know where it will end up
“let emer­gent effects reign”

a dilemma fol­lows from this, though — still have to run the com­pany by the same ideals
– it’s eth­i­cal com­mit­ment to open-ended cre­ation runs counter to the clas­si­cally bureau­cratic approach; also can’t go the charis­matic leader route
– by exten­sion, this mut also ide­ally gov­ern how Lin­den Lab oper­ates — it too must be anti-bureaucratic
– the result? a cri­sis of legit­i­mate decision-making

so they turned to Arpad Elo, a math­meti­cian, who gave them a way to rank play­ers
they ended up putting every task in Jira soft­ware (because the head of the com­pany said they would do this); employ­ees picked a win­ner from the tasks, which gen­er­ated a rank­ing of what they would work on
turned to game tech­niques to make decisions

“ludic bureau­cracy” — lin­ger­ing ques­tions
– is this the new insti­tu­tion for the Dig­i­tal Age?
– how legit­i­mate are the outcomes/decisions reached by game techniques?

they exited the sys­tem after less than a month

Rules — Kathy Sierra

Time­line:
1. blog com­ments
2. ‘mean kids’ site
3. email exchanges
4. ‘mean kids’ comes down
5. uncle­bo­bism appears
6. police
7. I blog it
7.5. retal­i­a­tion
8. media night­mare
9. offline

why did it become such a big story?
direct result of her visibility?

she tried to ana­lyze it, includ­ing what peo­ple called the whole thing

inter­net “rules“
1. don’t feed the trolls (but it esca­lated because they were try­ing to get a reac­tion
2. if it’s on the net, it’s not a REAL threat (this is what peo­ple told her)
3. you own your own words (and nobody else’s); ques­tion: are you respon­si­ble for com­ments oth­ers make on your blog?
4. civil­ity = cen­sor­ship
5. “if you want to be on the inter­net, grow a pair“
6. online friends are “real” friends… and can be trusted (site own­ers involved didn’t know who was posting)

psy­cho­log­i­cal “rules“
the brain has a mind of its own
1. anonymity — “the greater inter­net fuck­wad the­ory“
part of the prob­lem is the brain’s “illu­sion of invul­ner­a­bil­ity“
peo­ple who sur­vive hor­rific sce­nar­ios have less of this illu­sion of invul­ner­a­bil­ity
2. any­one can be seduced by sit­u­a­tional forces and group dynam­ics
“the lucifer effect” — The Stan­ford Prison Exper­i­ment & The Stan­ley Mil­gram Obe­di­ence Stud­ies
it can hap­pen almost instantly

the per­sua­sive power of social proof — it’s why adver­tis­ing works
“if he’s doing it, it must be okay to do”

Doc Searls took down his blogroll because it put him one degree away from some­one behind the mean sites

we can use the power of social proof
1. code of con­duct — not even explicit; eg, Javaranch reg­is­tra­tion terms of ser­vice, which con­sist of “be nice.” “no dumb ques­tions” and “no dumb answers;” mod­er­a­tors keep the tone
2. who we rec­om­mend — remem­ber that our read­ers per­ceive links as endorse­ments, even if we don’t mean them to be
be aware of what can appear to be accep­tance, tacit approval, or even cel­e­bra­tion
most impor­tantly, be mind­ful of your brain’s deceptions

a good rule: less bark, more wag

Joi Ito
We Know/We No Forums for his WoW guild
used to work as a DJ in a club and sees many of the same issues in online forums
in the past, if you could do it in the game, it was okay — find­ing the hack was okay; design­ers worked to keep out the hacks
now, though, Blizzard’s terms of ser­vice states that just because you can do it, doesn’t mean you can — they will still ban you
issue of buy­ing gold out­side of the game to use in-game
Bliz­zard uses the terms sub­jec­tively when they want to
so the guild had to cre­ate a long set of rules for how to han­dle gold
best metaphors are the night­club and church ones — it can become unfun and unravel very quickly
Joi is a dic­ta­tor about the metaphors only in terms of run­ning the forums
cor­po­rate metaphor com­pletely fails (because what you do isn’t based on your job)

Law & Vir­tual Worlds — Greg Las­towka
low stakes in vir­tual worlds right now, but may change
Four par­ties involved: two play­ers, the owner of the plat­form, and the state
player invest­ments = time and money
own­ers invest­ment = time and money and tech­no­log­i­cal con­trol
state = gen­er­ally not invested

looked at 5 dif­fer­ent pos­si­ble sce­nar­ios of prob­lems and whether the state inter­venes or not
fifth sce­nario involves a fifth party and stolen copyright/trademark

2 big ques­tions
1 — legally, what is a vir­tual world? (what is it like?)
2– how do the opti­mal rules for vir­tual worlds differ?

we need a more sophis­ti­cated frame­work for apply­ing law to vir­tual worlds

vir­tual worlds as com­mu­ni­ties, games, fic­tions
not really spe­cial if they’re just online com­mu­ni­ties
state defers more to com­mu­nity self-ordering (game rules), but may inter­vene in the case of games
for fic­tion, the state has sub­stan­tial def­er­ence to all aspects of vir­tual wor­llds — own­ers are priv­i­leged speak­ers (eg, the­ater); pos­si­ble defense to keep­ing the state out of vir­tual worlds

what is an “opti­mal” pol­icy for ludic order­ing? (game, con­tract, state)
reg­u­la­tion by state — clas­sic legal rule, gen­er­ally “uni­form“
cus­tomiz­able as con­tracts, though (EULAs, pri­vate agree­ments)
so the ques­tion is are games some­how spe­cial?
game rules — effi­cient, arbi­trary, state’s role if they are arbi­trary? who decides?

No tags for this post.

we started out the morn­ing by play­ing “reverse scav­enger hunt” (we are soooo play­ing this at GLLS2008!)

Amy Jo Kim — Putting the Fun in Functional

http://shufflebrain.com/

game design prin­ci­ples have been find­ing their way onto web­sites more and more
“social media” for her
1. player-created con­tent (she likes to talk about the peo­ple who use your soft­ware as “play­ers,” not cus­tomers) +
2. social fea­tures (pro­files, rep­u­ta­tion, groups, etc.) +
3. tools for sharing

“game” = a struc­tured expe­ri­ence with rules and goals that’s fun (which includes things like “The Sims”)
stretches what can be con­sid­ered a “game“
games tap into our pri­mal response pat­terns
game pay­offs are like slot machines — ran­dom, unpre­dictable, not always con­trolled by your behav­ior
games engage us in “flow” (that space between apa­thy and bore­dom, anx­i­ety and bore­dom)
the tricky part is that the game has to adjust as you play it

game mechan­ics for social media
1. col­lect­ing — you’re going to show off your stuff (stuff in WoW, friends in Face­book, etc.); so when you’re design­ing, look at what can be col­lected to drive player behav­ior; down­side is who has the most friends
2. points — point sys­tems give you leader­boards, give you some­thing sticky over time; great way to intro­duce new fea­tures, new areas to explore; social points are given by other points (dif­fer­ent from sys­tem points); eg, flickr inter­est­ing­ness, ebay rep­u­ta­tion, etc.
3. feed­back — accel­er­ates mas­tery; eg, Gui­tar Hero; this is prob­a­bly the low­est hang­ing fruit of all these; it’s one of the eas­i­est ways to make some­thing com­pelling and fun and to help peo­ple mas­ter the curve
4. exchanges — back and forth inter­ac­tions between two peo­ple; implicit (not built into the sys­tem, but comes out in other ways, eg The Wall in Face­book or the social pres­sure to pro­vide feed­back on exchanges in ebay) vs. explicit exchanges (cod­i­fied in the sys­tem, eg adding a friend in Face­book); so leave room for implicit exchanges
5. cus­tomiza­tion — of the inter­face, your char­ac­ter, your iden­tity, your expe­ri­ence; makes the per­son more invested and just makes it more fun; Gaia Online lets you cus­tomize your avatar before you even start playing

power to the play­ers (trends)
1. the rise of con­tent shar­ing net­works — Flickr, YouTube, etc. that cre­ate the net­work but the play­ers exchange the con­tent
2. acces­si­ble tech — much sim­pler UIs, open APIs, cross-platform ser­vices; see­ing these things in games, too
3. syn­di­ca­tion — not just hav­ing your content-sharing net­work, but also to be able to take bits of it and place it on other sites (feeds, wid­gets, embed code); inte­grat­ing with the rest of the web and acces­si­ble there

some of this change is because of the change in the audi­ence (new demo­graph­ics for gam­ing, both up and down); broad­en­ing of the audi­ence has trans­formed game design into some­thing that reaches beyond the hard­core
hap­pen­ing on the web, too

game mechan­ics + social media = the future of net­worked entertainment?

gave some tips that can be found on her website

points don’t have to be explicit — views on a pic­ture, how many times it was emailed, etc.
points are not always the right thing to use

Merci Ham­mon — PMOG
launched in March before hav­ing to take the game down for improve­ments due to new fund­ing
Fire­fox exten­sion
game envi­ron­ments, the envi­ron­ment lev­els you up
in pas­sively mul­ti­player, you don’t get to choose your class; you get assigned a role
in PMOG, two of them rep­re­sent order and two rep­re­sent chaos
you can pur­chase things that are bizarre
light­posts are used to cre­ate “quests” (they “illu­mi­nate” your con­text or some­thing about the site)
“por­tals” trans­ported you from one site to another seam­lessly, but became a prob­lem because of where you might end up
Merci’s favorite object was a mine — could leave one on a site and then the next PMOG player hit­ting a site would encounter it; an anony­mous weapon that spreads havoc for the other play­ers
had to develop “armor” at the end because pop­u­lar sites would obvi­ously get mined quickly

they were shut out by del.icio.us, open direc­tory didn’t work, so they cre­ated their own tags
you get points for eras­ing other peo­ples’ tags and for adding your own
so users are deter­min­ing the scope of the universe

hop­ing to test the new ver­sion in early 2008

http://www.pmog.com/

they don’t mon­i­tor game­play to see if play­ers are gam­ing the sys­tem
pas­sive because of class char­ac­ter­i­za­tions and point collection

Play­ful Pro­gram­ming, Com­pet­i­tive Code — Ned Gully (The Math­Works, Inc.)
“the big brain has many legs“
“com­pet­i­tive wikipedia” — imag­ine if the sys­tem could award points if your edit was an improve­ment and your pic­ture then appeared on the page?
would wikipedia be bet­ter for hav­ing a sys­tem like this?
his con­tests run like this:
– entries are auto­mat­i­cally scored, ranked, and dis­played imme­di­ately
– code, author, and score are vis­i­ble at all times
– any­one can mod­ify any­one else’s code and resub­mit it as their own

means you have to put your code into the pub­lic domain to get rewarded
are they encour­ag­ing col­lab­o­ra­tion or theft?
will this make you so angry that you won’t play any­more?
hav­ing been tweaked, some peo­ple delight in tweak­ing right back
“tweak­ing is the nickel slots of their con­test” — teaches peo­ple to open up (their wal­lets, in the case of the slots)

par­tic­i­pa­tion
showed a graph of improv­ing game play scores which resulted in a final entry that was code no one could have writ­ten on their own

phase tran­si­tions (Jenny: can actu­ally illus­trate reflec­tion?)
lots of inter­est­ing graphs and an ani­ma­tion of the tweaks
inno­va­tion uptake — can see it hap­pen in convultion-based algo­rithm
social sig­nal­ing — it’s just code, but thou­sands of entires have to be named; became fun exchange of com­mu­ni­ca­tion
code genomics
per­sonal glory or col­lab­o­ra­tion? the code is the one inter­ested in col­lab­o­ra­tion
the coder wants to block code prop­a­ga­tion while the code wants to prop­a­gate — use this to shape the con­test design
for the coder, make par­tic­i­pa­tion easy, reward van­ity, many cheap prizes, and dark­ness period
for the code, encour­age copy­ing, high­light changes, pun­ish com­plex­ity, anti-obfuscation tools

think of the code as genomic in a bio­log­i­cal sense
lib­er­at­ing to think of the code as an entity with its own agenda
well-written code is manip­u­lat­ing you to make more code like it
“a chicken is only an egg’s way of mak­ing another egg” –> “a hacker is only a code’s way of mak­ing more code”

fit­ness func­tion is how fast did it run, but per­for­mance, too; blend­ing them at a cost func­tion
how would you eval­u­ate future recyclability

A Cre­ative Com­mu­nity for Young Pro­gram­mers and Game Design­ers: Boku — Matt Maclau­rin
he tried to fig­ure out what com­put­ers are for
– cre­at­ing new worlds
– invent­ing new lan­guages
– udner­stand­ing cog­ni­tion
– evok­ing won­der
more

soft­ware as an expres­sive medium
code as a medium
– the only truly mod­ern medium

sim­u­la­tion is the fun­da­men­tal basis of cog­ni­tion
it’s a good descrip­tion of how we think; we don’t think like a text engine
play­ing mag­i­cal stuff makes you want to make mag­i­cal stuff
then they get exposed to code — ugh

some his­tory about pro­gram­ming envi­ron­ments (logo, etc.)

Boku’s approach
– start with a work­ing sim­u­la­tion
– real-world objects and verbs
– throw out every­thing (loops, vari­ables, most con­trol struc­tures)
– no typ­ing (uses an XBox con­troller instead)
– make the exer­pi­ence fluid and immediate

could debate whether or not this is really programming

start off in a blank world where noth­ing is going on until you participate

demoed Boku — very cool, don’t ever see the code

adding actions adds the nar­ra­tive; just hav­ing one bot eat an apple while the other one tries to kick made it into a con­test with­out even adding any con­test code
lets you eas­ily cre­ate bar­ri­ers and bound­aries (like mountains)

early test­ing:
– 11 is a great age for this
– some as young as 7 can pro­gram
– com­mu­nity is crit­i­cal (inspi­ra­tion, learn­ing)
– kids really dig shoot­ing
– world editing

ques­tions?
– is pro­gram­ming a core lit­er­acy?
– is com­pu­ta­tion a core lit­er­acy, and is pro­gram­ming the only man­i­fes­ta­tion of it?
– do we need con­flict?
– is it okay for kids to act out vio­lent fan­tasies?
– what “verbs” should boku have?
– what is the inter­sec­tion between sto­ry­telling and game design?
– how to define authorship?

Alter­nate Real­i­ties — Susan Bonds
“42 Enter­tain­ment cre­ates trans-media nar­ra­tives for highly par­tic­i­pa­tory expe­ri­ences through a vari­ety of both online and offline mechanisms”

dis­trib­uted nar­ra­tive
i love bees
one of the biggest rewards for this type of enter­tain­ment is just play­ing it
world as plat­form
– every­thing can be used to tell a piece of the story, which takes the pres­sure off any one piece to carry the whole tale

lev­els of audi­ence (inverse tri­an­gle)
– casual, level 1 (more and more peo­ple enter­ing here); mod­est level of inter­ac­tion, mostly online par­tic­i­pa­tion, broad­est audi­ence reach
– active, level 2 (sig­nif­i­cant level of inter­ac­tion, online and some offline)
– enthu­si­ast, level 3 (very high level of inter­ac­tion, par­tic­i­pa­tion across media into the real world, “tip of the wedge” super-engaged audi­ence that can cre­ate enter­tain­ment for the other two levels)

has found that the com­mu­nity will form on its own
– the power of one can fuel the power of the many
– “hive mind” — peo­ple will col­lab­o­rate based on shared goals and interests

can take tra­di­tional mar­ket­ing mate­ri­als and doing some­thing dif­fer­ent with it
“hide in plain sight”

used “Year Zero” exam­ple from Nine Inch Nails (http://iamtryingtobelieve.com/)
even giv­ing out but­tons at lis­ten­ing par­ties became clues

how can you make peo­ple think? how can it used for social expe­ri­ence?
an impor­tant part of the ARG was mpow­er­ing play­ers to make the themes of the­mu­sic their own. this was facil­i­tated through two sites — Art is Resis­tance and Open Source Resis­tance, the lat­ter of which accepts user gen­er­ated art and has even pub­lished in mag­a­zines and online.

www.ninwiki.com
opensourceresistance.com
www.artisresistance.com

when a story starts com­ing at you through the chan­nels of your “real” life you start to see your life through the lens of that story
at the end, you saw a file of the play­ers with “case num­bers” as accomplices

all of their com­mu­ni­ties are organic and set up by the com­mu­ni­ties themselves

audi­ence ques­tion: can you use these sys­tems to engen­der positive/normative behav­ior?
“it doesn’t mat­ter what you believe, as long as you speak up“
peo­ple are look­ing for a roadmap to activism

No tags for this post.

Life: If you’re bored, you’re doing it wrong — Élan Lee
we should all be car­ry­ing buck­ets with us every­where we go
they are the key to enter­tain­ment because you can just walk in any­where with one (even doors with “unau­tho­rized per­sons” signs on them)
described the games “toast” and “sand­bags” (flood­board­ing)
can find fun all around us if you can extract enter­tain­ment from the world around you
cloth­ing with hid­den mes­sages in the stitch­ing, invis­i­ble inks, etc.; tell sto­ries through cloth­ing
every­one should answer pay­phones all the time — it’s an invi­ta­tion into a whole new world
– it could be an invi­ta­tion to become a super­hero
“i love bees“
think up a ques­tion and call a cus­tomer ser­vice line (call Butterball’s line and ask them if god exists)
there’s always some­thing to do out there
(pecha kucha” for­mat with progress bar)

Sup­port­ing Social Deviance — Cliff Lempe
any­time you vio­late norms of a com­mu­nity
crime, sex, obs­cen­tiy, vio­lence, etc.
most of the inter­est­ing online com­mu­ni­ties are pri­vately owned (by Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.)
open ques­tions:
– why do we have to all get along?
– does mis­be­hav­ior have its place in online com­mu­ni­ties?
– how can users voice their dis­sent with own­ers of online com­mu­ni­ties?
– why types of deviance shouldn’t we support?

what role does social deviance play in bring­ing down a com­mu­nity?
need to allow a cer­tain amount of deviance to test boundaries

Beth Kolko — adapt­ing to cell phones
inter­net in many places of the world takes hap­pens in pub­lic places
“being online” = chat­ting
“being on the inter­net” = down­load­ing data
com­mu­ni­ca­tion ver­sus infor­ma­tion
“col­lec­tive tech­nolo­gies“
cell phones are not col­lec­tive through­out the entire world
mobile usage out­num­bers com­puter usage 2:1
peo­ple don’t trust local enti­ties for access
social net­work­ing via SMS is the way else­where in the world
SMS makes more sense than the inter­net

Online Video Gets Social — Mary Mad­den
57% of online adults watch or down­load online video
of those who have broad­band at home, 66% watch or down­load online video
only 8% of adults have uploaded a video
multi-channel, anno­tated com­mu­ni­ca­tion with web 2.0
at what point do we dis­con­nect and not inter­act because of infor­ma­tion overload?

Search­Party: A Design Con­cept for Social Search — Thomas Erick­son
aim is to design visu­al­iza­tions that show the pres­ence and activ­i­ties of peo­ple in online sys­tems
imag­ine if you could con­duct a search in public

(Jenny: this would be an inter­est­ing way to visu­al­ize vir­tual ref­er­ence transactions)

pro­gres­sive engage­ment:
– glimpses of activ­ity (entice)
– watch­ing (imi­tate)
– kib­itz­ing (share)
– act­ing (commit)

mak­ing peo­ple and their activ­i­ties vis­i­ble to one another is a pow­er­ful way of sup­port­ing coör­di­na­tion and col­lab­o­ra­tion in online contexts

Jerry Michal­ski — pres­ence
a lazy­web set of ideas
why is it so hard for me to share my screen?
why does it still take me 20 min­utes of setup for an enhanced con­fer­ence call?
why isn’t there a sim­ple com­par­i­son tool wid­get?
why can’t I high­light, anno­tate, com­ment on email in my email pro­gram?
why are the tools so awful when you try to bring peo­ple together into a group?
the tools are still in the “Model T” phase

Clay Shirky
dif­fu­sion changes the tech­nol­ogy, not just adop­tion
flash mobs as a form of polit­i­cal protest, announced in pub­lic, that can’t be traced to spe­cific peo­ple
let’s all walk around “octo­ber square” smil­ing — the secret police have to then decide if this is a polit­i­cal act
showed Twit­ter feed of some­one arrested in Egypt
you don’t just drop this stuff in and get rev­o­lu­tion, but some­thing is going on here
makes him hope­ful, moreso than the lol­cats
any­thing that low­ers trans­ac­tions costs can be valu­able, whether or not the older gen­er­a­tion under­stands it
“the more peo­ple use it for their cats, the eas­ier it is to use polit­i­cally” — Clay quot­ing some­one else
if you really want some­thing to be adopted, espe­cially in repres­sive regimes with some inter­net access, make sure it has util­ity to the entire pop­u­la­tion
showed Tunisian prison map as an under­ap­pre­ci­ated tool
the change in com­mon knowl­ege to pub­lic knowledge

No tags for this post.

(shouldn’t this be *wire­less* teens??)

Linda Stone:

youth pat­terns show us where things are going
anil dash said email isn’t used by the 20-year olds at Six Apart (they use Basecamp)

right now we’re doing what the com­puter does well and we haven’t fig­ured out what to make the com­puter do to enhance our lives, which we will crave the more noise we have in our lives

“con­tin­u­ous par­tial atten­tion for con­tin­u­ous par­tial friend­ship” (which Liz and Lili took issue with — it’s not par­tial friend­ship to them!)

an inter­est in pres­ence says I want ground­ing on where I am

Anas­ta­sia Good­stein — http://ypulse.com/

wrote a book for par­ents about what teens are doing
new gen­er­a­tion gap
some of the ques­tions she gets asked by par­ents
– “will they lose their social skills?“
– “will they take this stuff down, can it go away?“
– “how can recruiters and oth­ers see my kid’s pro­file if it’s private?”

when is it okay to take someone’s pic­ture and put it online?
the other big chal­lenge is set­ting lim­its when kids have

pow­er­ful ten­den­cies to stay con­nected 24/7
teens will migrate (they left Xanga when adults found it)
growth in vir­tual worlds
blur­ring of wall between mar­ket­ing and adver­tis­ing
need for mar­ket­ing literacy

wid­get explo­sion — teens have always dec­o­rated their rooms, lock­ers, shoes, etc.; now hav­ing a vir­tual space means trick­ing it out

glit­ter­text

social media @ school
mtv did a study where they took away the inter­net for a week and then asked them what they missed most about it; answer was they couldn’t do their home­work
most schools are very reac­tive right now

gen­er­a­tional dif­fer­ences at work
more struc­tured grow­ing up, so need struc­ture in work
need more feed­back and input
not doing sum­mer jobs but doing ser­vice that will help them get into col­lege
how can we help young peo­ple man­age their online rep­u­ta­tions and learn appro­pri­ate tech­nol­ogy use?
how can we teach infor­ma­tion lit­er­acy, cred­i­ble sources, and mar­ket­ing lit­er­acy?
how can we get par­ents and teach­ers caught up?
how can we deliver con­tex­tual resources to teens “in trou­ble” online

Ste­fana Broadbent

look­ing for oppor­tu­ni­ties for con­ver­gence
vis­ited 250 house­holds each year in Switzer­land
75% of Swiss teens are appren­tices; at the age of 16, there is a strong selec­tion process that decides which kids go on to fin­ish higher edu­ca­tion; the rest go into appren­tice­ships 4 days a week and school 1 day a week

stefana’s group col­lects time­lines of days; showed an exam­ple of kids with the same time­lines (sched­ules) as their father
these kids are using all of the “youth” chan­nels
the group also col­lects the kids com­mu­ni­ca­tion diaries (on paper) where they jot down every inter­ac­tion for pro­fes­sional activities

adults have found spe­cial uses for each chan­nel
– fix phone: the Col­lec­tive Chan­nel
– Mobile voice: the Micro Coör­di­na­tion Chan­nel
– SMS: the Inti­mate Chan­nel
– Email: the Admin­is­tra­tive Chan­nel
– IM: the Con­tin­u­ous Chan­nel
– Social Net­work­ing Sites: the Chan­nel for Weak Ties

teenagers have the same pat­tern with the excep­tion of SMS and IM, which are flipped: SMS is the Micro Coör­di­na­tion Chan­nel and IM is the Inti­mate Chan­nel
– some shift between writ­ten chan­nels — from SMS and email to

IM
– slightly less usage of mobile phone chan­nels teens like to use
– IM is their main com­mu­ni­ca­tion chan­nel, includ­ing on mobile

devices
– mobile phone is pre­ferred for last minute coör­di­na­tion and

longer con­ver­sa­tions

chan­nels teens use but don’t like
– email is prac­ti­cally nonex­is­tent (used for con­tacts with school admin­is­tra­tion and older peo­ple), is per­ceived as asyn­chro­nous and there­fore not inter­est­ing for main­tain­ing daily con­tacts
com­pared to other coun­tries, Swiss teenagers are more mul­ti­modal; they are just as mul­ti­modal as 25–35 year olds

use of social net­work­ing sites is lim­ited to sup­port­ing “usgang” (means “going out”)
– heav­ily con­nected to par­ty­ing and going out — as a sou­venir, as a way of find­ing peo­ple or mild flirt­ing
– a space where you can share pic­tures
– not a space where you com­mu­ni­cate with friends

com­mu­ni­ca­tion with friends is still on IM and the mobile phone
their real buddy list is their IM buddy list

is teens’ social online behav­ior affected bybe­ing in an adult work envi­ron­ment?
do you need to share a lot of daily activ­i­ties such as going to school together to really hang out with them online in the “third space?“
are online spaces a con­tin­u­a­tion of school envi­ron­ments?
how much daily con­tact do you need to feed your online pres­ence?
asso­ci­a­tions, clubs, etc. are the envi­ron­ments where teenagers that work, share com­mon activ­i­ties
impor­tance of shared con­text
“The Way We Really Are” book by a soci­ol­o­gist
teens in Switzer­land are get­ting an adult, pro­fes­sional role

long before teens in the U.S.

Sean Kelly — Zoodaloo

small com­pany with staff spread out
using Basecamp’s chat chan­nel every day, all day
no cor­po­rate stor­age — it’s all on basecamp

most folks who have a webkinz got it from a female and they use it to stay in touch with kids
casual gam­ing and sto­ry­telling
ani­mal avatars are the most pop­u­lar right now
secret codes and the abil­ity to find out infor­ma­tion you can

use socially (like how to skip when walk­ing)
kids cre­ated a code of num­bers in club pen­guin that only they

knew, so cp turned off the abil­ity to type in num­bers
sites popped up with Club Pen­guin Cheat Codes
kids want to believe that every­thing in the world is interactive

Mike D’Abramo — youthog­ra­phy (mar­ket­ing company)

did 200 focus groups, 120 stud­ies, on 120,000 youth

youth is a dif­fer­ent atti­tude than it used to be — it’s a way to expe­ri­ence your life, not a num­ber
the 4 x 5 fac­tor = the 10–29 group divides into four equal five-year cohorts (10–14, 15–19, 20–24, 25–29)

self-reliance
21% of youth live in a house­hold with no borthers or sis­ter (so online with friends)
fam­i­lies aren’t tra­di­tional any­more, over 11% of Amer­i­cans were born else­where
if you don’t under­stand immi­grants, you’re miss­ing out on 1 in 10 peo­ple (1 in 5 in Canada)
my down­time at home
even when kids go to col­lege, they may not be leav­ing home
at a younger age, you’re tak­ing a cer­tain num­ber of adult respon­si­bil­i­ties, but at an older age you’re stay­ing home longer, post­pon­ing mar­riage, etc.
“role­less­ness” — if you can stay at home until you’re 29, you do because it’s cheaper, etc.
– “pro­longed pre-adulthood“
you start becom­ing an adult very young, but you don’t really do

it until a much later age
there are many things young peo­ple do, but they do them dif­fer­ently at dif­fer­ent ages
younger peo­ple wanted to be like older peo­ple — now it’s going both ways

fewer sib­lings at home = greater reliance on friends
sin­gle par­ent house­holds = greater self-reliance
bal­anced demogr­pahics = lifestyle shar­ing
immi­gra­tion = clour blind­ness and diver­sity
six-pocket syn­drome = more as-needed cash
==> it’s not only the cul­ture chang­ing, it’s the people

trends:
– inte­gra­tion cul­ture: used to be in tribes, a way of cre­at­ing iden­tity at school; now, though, young peo­ple aren’t being cat­e­go­rized so eas­ily now; no longer so easy to define
kids grew up in a world where this wasn’t nor­mal
– hedo­nor­mal­iza­tion: things that are self-indulgent and make us feel good are part of our expe­ri­ence
now have phar­ma­cul­ture, talk about sex frankly, explod­ing influ­ences, infor­ma­tion, stan­dards have cre­ated a larger

cul­ture of gen­eral per­mis­siv­ness, gam­bling on TV
– rehu­man­iza­tion: not a back­lash against tech­nol­ogy, but idea that we want to get back to some­thing more authen­tic
the ipod is very iso­lat­ing, but we make it social (playlist play­offs); tak­ing an inti­mate item and turn­ing it into a social expe­ri­ence
the return and rise of rock n’roll over the last few years, com­fort food, nat­ural food

on the hori­zon:
– greater con­cern for pub­lic health (espe­cially kids’ health)
– orga­ni­za­tions with multi­gen­er­a­tional work­places need to have all staff get along
– pri­vacy issues grow, espe­cially with regards to data mining

social net­works and loy­alty cards
– busi­ness mod­els: dis­trib­uted mod­els for mass own­er­ship of busi­nesses at a low cost threshold

we need to think about the peo­ple and the cul­ture as much as you think about the prod­uct or ser­vice
– how do we reach new immi­grant pop­u­la­tions with tech­nol­ogy?
– how do the neg­a­tive effects of these trends get blamed on the tech­nol­ogy itself and what can we do to mit­i­gate this?

Fiona Romeo — Children’s Dig­i­tal Lives: Risk Sce­nar­ios 2014

social play cre­at­ing codes that would be adapted when banned
“dic­tio­nary danc­ing” (Club Penguin)

“Watch­ing You, Watch­ing Me” sce­nario from the BBC
low fear, cen­tralised, dig­i­tal assis­tance with life
“Pay­ing to Play on the Multi­net” — high fear, decentralised

dig­i­tal life, free mar­ket deliv­ers branded enter­tain­ment
“Left to Their Own Devices” — high fear, decen­tralised digital

assis­tance with life, gadget-enabled socia­bil­ity and play

reduced scope for play (which means explo­ration)
increas­ingly insti­tu­tion­al­ized time
peo­ple over­es­ti­mate risks in sit­u­a­tions they can’t con­trol and they under­es­ti­mate them in sit­u­a­tions where they do have con­trol
over­es­ti­mate on issues dis­cussed in the news, too
there aren’t many des­ig­nated play places in the world
fewer chil­dren cycle to school any­more — they get dri­ven to school
nowhere to let mind roam freely
kids don’t feel wel­come in places like shops

showed lat­ter two sce­nar­ios
adver­tis­ing may be the great­est risk to kids in the “pay­ing to play” sce­nario; specter of an ad-based youth mobile net­work in the UK; Dis­ney track­ing phones; ban­ning of free ads there

children’s mobil­ity and mon­i­tor­ing
mobile phones are the new bicy­cles, as they are giv­ing chil­dren more free­dom and range, per­sonal and portable, increas­ing in inter­ac­tiv­ity
let par­ents mon­i­tor from a distance

kids expect things like fin­ger­print­ing in school and believe they have noth­ing to hide but go “nuclear” when you talk about par­ents mon­i­tor­ing their phones
ongo­ing dia­logue between par­ents and kids
no need for con­stant updates any­more; par­ents and kids nego­ti­ate the num­ber of updates

most par­ents aren’t aware of internet-capabilities on the phone

dis­cus­sion from questions

in Switzer­land, find­ing that 80% of the calls are to 4 people

most peo­ple hold their breath when they down­load email
con­tin­u­ous par­tial atten­tion and not breath­ing as a phe­nom­e­non means your per­sonal CO2 level goes up
peo­ple over-breathe when on the cell phone
food and sleep issues, too (some don’t eat until they get home at 3:30; stay­ing up late and not sleeping

http://www.whateverlifemagazine.com/

No tags for this post.