Phase 3: draft for Principle, Process, Methods

Second Round ( add on )

principle: Emotion affects sharing behaviors in interaction design

context/example: Interactive behavior is not independent based online, related with emotion factors. Instead of focusing on increasing users’ trust, I want to present communal sharing that shifts the perspective towards factors that support trustworthy behavior. Possibly, the example will be set up on complexity behaviors that human interact with objects (Complicated pleasures, distrust, supports) and simplicity that designers bring simulation to the system.

process(diagram): definition::

1. define roles and responsibilities: borderline zone btw pragmatic design and emotional experience ( from the perspective of real objects)

2. identify stakeholder and user communities: for new comer, trust btw collaborators for the start-ups

3. prioritize key task

4. establish metrics: both the positive and negative effects

Method

• Technique: combine the psychological approach to design instead of need being purely functional; Designers come to test upon looking for more emotional and psychological needs.

First Round

Principle:

• Statement: Be worthy of people’s trust to set up communal sharing with multiple identities
• Description: Stovepipe system (which limited data integration) and high cost of query in networks of data were amongst the best friends of privacy. But in an era where data integration is becoming easier across applications, and web-scale searching is offered free to the public, we can no longer rely on technical impediments to privacy intrusion. Although some websites did use so called transparent system, more and more publics have tested the level of trust. It’s a gap and also a big challenge for designer to rethink their approach to embrace transparent sharing which can be trust.
• Rationale: The benefits of adhering to the principle lie in that:

Firstly, being based on different levels of trust, it helps community better control expectation and is sustained through expectations. Secondly, trust is also a branch of personal emotion. It shall be connected with people in practical life. So stick to this principle, which relates both online, and offline community groups. It contributes to create sense of belongings. Thirdly, it works to embrace diversity of stakeholders existing in the same online system and respect to diverse value opinions. It motivates designers to structure-built accommodating to multiple identities, at the same time, preventing consolidation of power. (such as different hierarchies in the public)

• Context/Example: The multiple identities I want to mainly focus on are three groups of people, Lurkers VS Actives (multiple accounts, fake information for online identity, Citizens VS Governors or Users VS Stakeholders (transparency in government power hierarchy), Beginners VS Experts (new comers and masters from the online forum community)
• Implications:

+       Ensure active transparency from individual participation in the whole community

+       Trust is sometimes based on true activities. It’s better to be improvebe through accomplishing a task rather than staying online itself.

+       Exposure metrics for highly distributed networks: more sharing tools show up that help people assess how this marginally-greater data collection about them will change what is publicly known and inferable about themselves.

+        Changing the habits of not just being trusted on paper trails, more communal sharing

+        Filters & sorting in the systems which adapt to different settings (such as language, cultural which also affect the ways of trust)

 

Process (Diagram):

• Phases:
• Definition

+       Defining roles and responsibilities

+       Identifying stakeholders, including user communities

+       Prioritizing key tasks

+       Establishing metrics for success

• Exploration

Make tests on human perception and behavior

• Prototyping
• Usability testing
• Refinement

Insight becomes the foundation for designs that take shape through well-articulated concepts, diagrams, prototypes and systems.

• Construction/Implementation
• Flow:

+       Multi-tier, outside-in

+       Time-sequenced in X axis (horizontal)

+       Various levels of social presence, power diagram (vertical)

+       Input and output

• Activities:

+       Orienting

+       Witness/introduction

+       Specialization

+       Identity-shifting

+       Co-creation

+       Provocation (negative)

+       Scale up/down

• Participants/Roles:

+       Lurkers-Actives

+       Governors-Publics

+       Stakeholders-Users

+       Experts-Beginners

Method:

• Overview: Reveal the highlighting aspects of participants’ lifestyle, habits, priorities and values, to test the community sharing shifting from transparent system to transparency in real life. Predict changes in behavior in order to understand the implications of high level trust in design.
• Purpose/Benefit: The system transparency is in effect btw groups/communities not employed by designers.
• Application:

Time by understanding the role and mindset of multiply identities

Time during when I need to describe how changes in transparent system behavior might affect whole design strategy.

• Setting: both daily life experiences and online sample
• Roles: Lurkers-Actives, Governors-Publics, Stakeholders-Users, Experts-Beginners
• Technique:

+       Define time-based habits that affect the trust btw people in the community.

+       Write up prose scenarios that describe how social and technological trends might influence people’s sharing behavior and use of the system.

+       Look for the evidence of people’s activities inherent in the changing pattern or organization of sharing.

• Instrument: video, email questionnaire, case/template testing
• Results: Designer will report the results based on different tests results from four groups of participants. Get clues to what’s important to transparency data sharing, then help designers to get better solutions.