Thesis evaluation: Compendium of Persuasive User Experience Design Techniques

Title: Compendium of Persuasive User Experience Design Techniques
Author:  Bc. Miroslav Kolesár
University: Masaryk University Faculty of Informatics
Year: 2017

Die vorliegende Masterarbeit behandelt ‘Persuasive Design’ und dessen psychologischen Hintergrund. Ich habe sie gewählt, weil dies ein Teil meiner Masterarbeit sein wird. 
The Master’s thesis is about ‘Persuasive Design’ and its psychological background. I chose it because this will be part of my Master’s thesis.

Gestaltungshöhe / Level of design
Die Masterarbeit ist graphisch nicht an das Thema angepasst. Es scheint eher eine Standardvorlage für wissenschaftliche Arbeiten zu sein. Der Text ist gut lesbar, der Zeilenabstand etwas zu gering. Manche Bilder sind im Text eingebunden, andere sind im Anhang nachzuschlagen. Das stört den Lesefluss.
The Master’s thesis is not visually adapted to the topic. It seems to be more of a standard template for scientific papers. The text is easy to read, but the line spacing is a bit too small. Some pictures are embedded in the text, others have to be looked up in the appendix. This disturbs the reading flow.

Innovationsgrad / Degree of innovation
Die Arbeit beleuchtet Persuasive Design Techniken von Grund auf. Die Inhalte sind zwar gut recherchiert und übersichtlich dargestellt, kommen jedoch in meinen Augen nicht über eine Zusammenfassung hinaus: Eine innovative, ungewöhnliche Perspektive auf das Thema finde ich weder im theoretischen noch im praktischen Teil.
The work examines persuasive design techniques from the ground up. The content is well researched and clearly presented, but in my eyes it does not go beyond a summary: I do not find an innovative, unusual perspective on the topic in either the theoretical or the practical part.

Selbstständigkeit / Independence
Ein praktisches Beispiel einer Webseite taucht in allen Kapiteln zur Veranschaulichung auf. Ich schätze, dass das die Arbeit des Autors ist, was auf seine Eigenständigkeit hindeutet. Inhaltlich nimmt er in der Arbeit immer wieder Bezug zu anderen Wissenschaftlern. Eine Überprüfung dieser Bezüge und seine eigenständige Sichtweise tauchen erst am Schluss auf. 
A practical example of a website appears in all chapters for visualising the written content. I guess this is the author’s work, which indicates his independence. In terms of content, he repeatedly refers to other scientists throughout the work. A review of these references and his independent view only appears at the end.

Gliederung und Struktur / Outline and structure
Durch das oben genannte Beispiel (Webseite zur Veranschaulichung) lässt sich ein roten Faden in der Arbeit gut erkennen. Der Autor baut zu Beginn seine Kapitel logisch aufeinander auf. Im Mittelteil sind mir ein bis zwei Kapitel aufgefallen, die nicht unbedingt in den Lesefluss passen. 
The example above (website for visualisation) makes it easy to see a common thread in the work. At the beginning, the author builds up his chapters logically. In the middle section, I noticed one or two chapters that do not necessarily fit into the reading flow.

Kommunikationsgrad / Degree of communication
Der Autor nutzt eine recht informelle Schreibweise. So wird zum Beispiel oft in der Ich-Person oder der Wir-Person geschrieben. Damit ist der Text leicht verständlich und gut lesbar – als wissenschaftlich würde ich ihn aber nicht unbedingt bezeichnen. Es werden Argumente teilweise nicht zu Ende geführt. Inhaltlich fehlt der Arbeit in meinen Augen eine ausführliche kritische Reflektion über dieses doch sehr ethische Thema/Problem – sie wird zwischendurch nur angerissen.
The author uses a rather informal style of writing. For example, he often writes in the first person or the we-person perspective. This makes the text easy to understand and read – but I would not necessarily call it a scientific writing style. Some arguments are not taken to their logical conclusion. In terms of content, I think the work lacks a detailed critical reflection on this very ethical topic/problem – it is only touched in some sections in the middle part.

Umfang der Arbeit / Scope of work
Der theoretische Part ist umfangreich und ausführlich recherchiert. Das Testing und der praktische Teil am Ende sind dagegen sehr kurz und oberflächlich gehalten. Es fehlt eine ausführliche Reflektion sowie Ausblick auf die Zukunft.
The theoretical part is comprehensive and researched on a broad scale. On the contrary the testing and practical parts at the end are very short and superficial. There is no detailed reflection or outlook on the future.

Orthographie sowie Sorgfalt und Genauigkeit / Orthography and accuracy
Der Autor hat einen sehr gut verständlichen und lesbaren Satzrhythmus. Ich habe sehr wenige Satzfehler gefunden. Die Fußnoten sind leider nicht direkt auf der Seite sondern nur im Anhang zu finden. Im Bildverzeichnis fehlen die Quellen gänzlich. Zu Beginn gibt es leider keinen Gender-Hinweis und die User werden durchgehend als ‘he/him’ bezeichnet.
The author has a very understandable and readable sentence rhythm. I found very few typo errors. Unfortunately, the footnotes are not directly on the page but only in the appendix. In the list of images, the sources are completely missing. Unfortunately, there is no gender reference at the beginning and the users are referred to as ‘he/him’ throughout the work.

Literatur / Literature
Der Autor hat breit recherchiert und aktuelle sowie etablierte Quellen genutzt. Er hat mehr online Artikel/Quellen als Bücher genutzt, was für die Thematik jedoch nachvollziehbar und gerechtfertigt ist.
The author has researched on a broad scale. He used current and established sources. He has used more online articles/sources than books, which is understandable and justified for this topic.

Bewusste Mediennutzung und die Design Ethik Polizei

Wie ich im vorangegangenen Blogpost erklärt habe, möchte ich mein aktuelles Recherche Thema in Frage stellen und entsprechend anpassen. Um meiner Arbeit eine Richtung zu geben habe ich zum Ende des zweiten Semesters meine ‘Vision’ als Designerin niedergeschrieben und auch wenn das ein wenig kitschig klingt bin ich nach wie vor überzeugt davon. 

Es lautet wie folgt:

As a media designer, I am aware how all kinds of media channels work and what they are capable of: Influencing our life positively but also negatively. I want to share this knowledge with others in order to make them benefit from media usage instead of suffering (mentally).

Diese Statement bezieht sich vor allem auf die mentalen Auswirkungen von Mediennutzung. Das beinhaltet Manipulation von Inhalten (Fake-News, Photoshop, …), Aufmerksamkeitsgenerierung (Clickbaits) sowie süchtig machenden Mechanismen von Apps und Websites (insbesondere Social Media und Gaming). Stundenlanges Social Media Scrollen, Realitätsflucht durch Serien Marathons bis hin zu körperlichen Beschwerden durch extensive Mediennutzung. Diese Phänomene sind heutzutage weit verbreitet und kosten uns einige Stunden unserer täglichen Lebenszeit. 

Wir leben in einer Zeit, die unsere volle Aufmerksamkeit fordert. Komplexe Themen wie den fortschreitenden Klimawandel oder eine globale Pandemie zwingen uns, Informationen, Berichte und Fakten zu bewerten und eine eigene Meinung zu bilden. Doch gerade jetzt gibt es vermehrt Unsicherheiten darüber, was oder wem man Glauben schenken kann und wie sich die eigene Meinung schlussendlich festigen soll. Anstatt sich einen Fokus zu setzen, Entscheidungen zu treffen und aktiv zu Handeln wird nach dem Smartphone oder der Fernbedienung gegriffen. 

Die Frage nach der richtigen oder eher bewussten Mediennutzung ist daher sehr essentiell. Und genau hier sehe ich Gestalter*innen in der Pflicht. All jene, die Medien konzipieren, mit Content füllen und in der Zielgruppe verbreiten sollten sich bewusst werden, welche Auswirkungen ihre digitale Produkte haben. Geht es nur noch darum, die User so lange wie möglich im Webshop zu halten? Wird dieser Gamification-Mechanismus das Suchtpotenzial des Spiels noch weiter steigern? 

Ich möchte auf keinen Fall die Design Ethik Polizei sein. Dennoch denke ich dass die ‘User’ am Ende des Tages Menschen sind, die mehr Transparenz verdient haben. Denen klar werden muss, dass Medien in den meisten Fällen so konzipiert werden, dass sie süchtig machen – oder zumindest so lange wie möglich Aufmerksamkeit auf sich ziehen wollen. Dass sie immer subjektiv sind. Dass sie niemals 1:1 die Realität abbilden. Gleichzeitig  sind es gerade digitale Medien die unsere Zukunft beeinflussen. Die das Potenzial haben den zuvor genannten komplexen Problemen die Stirn zu bieten. Die endlose, digitale Vernetzung von Menschen, deren Wissen und Informationen sind essentiell für das heutige globalisierte Miteinander. 

Das Ganze klingt im ersten Moment sicherlich sehr abstrakt. Dennoch möchte ich mich mehr in diese Richtung bewegen. Vor allem die Mechanismen, die uns nach digitalen Medien  wie Social Media oder Spiele süchtig machen interessieren mich. Warum sind diese Plattformen das erste, was ich am morgen checke? Warum hänge ich am Iphone anstatt im Zug einfach mal aus dem Fenster zu sehen? Warum kann ich die Stille nicht mehr ertragen und muss beim Putzen Musik oder Podcast hören? Zu dieser Thematik gibt es bereits viel Literatur und ich möchte auch einen Selbstversuch (Digital Detox) starten.

Bücher, die auf meiner Liste stehen:
– Seductive Interaction – Stephen P. Anderson (2011, New Riders)
– Social Media, a critical introduction – Christian Fuchs (2014, SAGE Publications)
– Soziologie vernetzter Medien – Andreas Schelske (2007, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH)
– Hooked: Wie Sie Produkte erschaffen, die süchtig machen – Nir Eyal (2014, Redline Verlag)

Ist online & offline Kommunikation vergleichbar?

Exclaimer: Sorry for all the english persons – I switch to german with the hope of writing more blog entries with that. If you are interested in the topic feel free to hit me up or use deepL (since I also use that a lot I guess you won’t feel any difference).

Meine zu Beginn des ersten Semesters gestellte Frage war, ob und wie Online Kommunikation mehr ‘menschlich’ gestaltet werden kann und so den realen Kontakt ersetzen kann. Meine subjektive, vorläufige Antwort darauf ist nein, ein Ersetzen ist nicht möglich. Werden Zeit, Raum, Technik in Betracht gezogen, ist ein ‘mehr menschlicher Gestalten’ bis zu einem gewissen Grad durchaus möglich. Die Frage ist nur, ob das tatsächlich nötig ist. Im Laufe meiner Recherche wurde immer deutlicher, dass Online Kommunikation ganz eigene Qualitäten hat, die sich grundsätzlich (und zu Recht) von realer Unterhaltung unterscheiden. Ein Vergleich ist daher in meinen Augen hinfällig. 

Hinfällig ist daher auch der Versuch auf Teufel komm raus die digitalen Kommunikationsmittel auf unsere realen Treffen anzugleichen. So ist es – in meinen Augen – beispielsweise nicht zwangsläufig notwendig eine weitestgehend theoretische/input Vorlesung als Live-Übertragung zu halten. Eine Videoaufzeichnung macht es Studierenden (Quelle: Informelle Befragung im eigenen Umfeld) durch die Vor-und Zurückspulen Option leichter mitzuarbeiten. Eine Live-Q&A Session kann im Anschluss die offen gebliebenen Fragen klären. Durch die vorgezogene Produktion können die Videos neben der Effektivität für Studierende auch den Dozent_Innen Zeit sparen (z.B. kein Überziehen der Stunde durch ständiges Wiederholen) und immer wieder verwendet werden. 

In Hinblick auf eine Gruppenarbeit können Online – Tools wie digitale Whiteboards (z.B. Miro, Mural,…) den Projektstatus dokumentiert. Gerade in einer Phase der Entscheidungsfindung kann es für die Gruppe effizienter sein, dass sich jeder Teilnehmende für sich Gedanken macht, diese niederschreibt, mit den anderen (digital) teilt und erst dann im Plenum darüber gesprochen und entschieden wird. So kann jeder die eigenen Argumente sorgfältig überdenken. Das führt dazu,  dass die anschließende Entscheidungsfindung zügig und zielgerichtet geführt wird. Ein durchdachter Wechsel aus realer, synchroner und asynchroner Kommunikation kann also die Online Medien zur idealen Ergänzung zu bisherigen Zusammenarbeit machen. 

Im Bereich des eher persönlichen, eins zu eins Kontaktes gibt es ebenfalls verschiedene Aspekte zu beachten. In einem früheren Eintrag habe ich über den ‘Intensification-Loop’ geschrieben: Die asynchrone Kommunikation verleitet uns durch die eigene, optimierte Selbstdarstellung dazu, mit dem Gegenüber (ebenfalls selbst optimiert dargestellt) intensivere und intimere Gespräche als in der Realität zu führen. Die digitale Anonymität oder zumindest das ‘Verstecken’ hinter einem Bildschirm können uns außerdem zu mehr Ehrlichkeit und Mut verleiten (was teilweise im Kontrast zur optimierten Selbstdarstellung steht). Das kann sich im negativen (z.B. Hass-Kommentare oder Cybermobbing) als auch im positiven Sinne (z.B. Introvertierte kommen endlich auch zu Wort) entwickeln. Insgesamt ist zu beachten, dass sich vor allem asynchrone Korrespondenz von realer Kommunikation unterscheidet und prinzipiell nicht vergleichbar ist. Dass diese digitale Kommunikationsart teilweise jegliche reale Unterhaltung ersetzt kann in manchen Fällen folgenschwer sein. So werden durch fehlende nonverbale Hinweise falsche Interpretationen angestellt, die wiederum zu weitreichenden Missverständnissen werden können. 

Unabhängig von realer Konversation betrachtet bieten Online Medien sehr viele ‘Safe-Places’: Plattformen sind oftmals leicht erreichbar und können je nach Stimmungslage aktiv oder passiv sowie anonym genutzt werden. Die Ortsunabhängigkeit macht uns sehr flexibel und erreichbar. Zusammengefasst haben digitale Kommunikationsmittel einzigartige Qualitäten, die sich oftmals nur schwer mit der direkten, verbalen Kommunikation vergleichen lassen. In Kombination können sie jedoch unsere Unterhaltung, Zusammentreffen und Zusammenarbeit effizienter, innovativer und effektiver gestalten.

Rückblickend auf die letzten zwei Semester konnte ich durch die Recherche viele nützliche Insights über die Kommunikation in Online Medien erlangen. Ein Verbesserungspotenzial sehe ich vor allem bei der Aufklärung. Welche Kommunikationsmittel eignet sich für das aktuelle Gespräch am besten? Welche Folgen für mich und mein Umfeld hat meine Entscheidung für eines der Kommunikationsmittel? Um fundierte Antworten auf diese Fragen zu finden fehlt mir entscheidendes Wissen in anderen Fachbereichen – was natürlich nicht unmöglich zu erlangen ist. Da ich jedoch weder Soziologin noch Psychologin bin und sein will, weiß ich nicht, ob ich die Thematik in meiner Masterarbeit 1:1 bearbeiten möchte. Für das dritte Semester und die anstehende Thesis werde ich also meine Augen offen halten und weiterhin die Themen recherchieren, die mich begeistern und motivieren. Ich freue mich wie immer über Kommentare, Hinweise oder Nachrichten von euch 🙂

06 | Understanding the user part 1

Interview with a high school teacher

In my previous blog entry (“05 // Online interaction scenario: Experience Map”) I wrote about the protopersona Sophie which is based on a real person, her experiences  mixed with my observation. In order to widen my perspective and not only examining the students/university view I am really happy to had the chance to interview Damaris about her online teaching experiences a german high school teacher.

The first question I asked was how she experienced the transition from presence to online lessons. She described that teaching in the first lockdown (around march 2020) was really hard because of the missing software and also missing equipment of teachers and students. Teachers mostly had to hand out printed homework packages and wait for them to be handed in later on. These experiences lead to a better preparation for the second lockdown (december 2020 – may 2021). The school then provided tablet for teachers and rental laptop for students without a device. They could held their lesson via video conferences in the software ‘Jitsi’ and used the platform ‘DiLer’ (= Digitale Lernplattform) for communication and data exchange. Teachers took their time to learn the software by themselves, then teach the students and let them practice the tool  to handle it properly. The teachers also learned how to use a visualiser which is a document camera for digitally recording printed media. 

The learning platform ‘DiLer’ – Developed by a german highschool

Next I asked her if she had to change something of her presence lesson curriculum for the online teaching. Damaris told me, that she had to digitize most of her teaching material in the first place to make online teaching possible. This included not only scanning printed material but also rework existing material to make it suitable. Furthermore she had to reorganise some exercises because group or partner work were difficult to implement in the first lockdown (without online support) but also in the online environment. The communication with students and parents changed from mainly verbal to mostly written communication which took a lot of time. 

I also asked Damaris, if online teaching made something easier or harder for her as a teacher. She answered that sadly there was nothing that online lessons made teaching for her easy. She explained that it was really hard for her to get the control back she needs as an educator. She didn’t know if the student actually work and couldn’t properly evaluate their performances – especially things like oral grades. Her own workload was extended due to the fact that she had to check each student’s (home)work instead of just discussing results orally in the classroom. 

In regard of the class Damaris observed that the online lesson environment worked well for students who already have been very structured and good in the presence lessons. The ones who need more attention from teachers in presence lessons were mostly even more behind in the online teaching environment because they couldn’t handle their self-management. One really interesting fact was that one of the students who was a rather quiet person in presence class started to become more outgoing in the online lectures. Maybe the online environment gave this person kind of a ‘safe place’ to express herself.

The fifth question I asked was if Damaris could imagine a continuation of online lessons or parts of it in the corona-free future. She answered that online teaching/communication could have some advantages in the future. One examples she mentioned was the advantage for getting more easily in touch with parents and having the opportunity to provide parents consultations late in the evening. She also observed that the students were able to develop a lot of new media literacy through the online lessons, which should definitely be encouraged in the future. 

I was really surprised when she told me that the teachers only had a software introduction of online teaching but no coaching for the didactic part of it like for example how to compensate/replace group work. The digitization of high school lessons during the pandemic and also in general times seems to me a bit neglected by the government and lies in the responsibility of the educators. 

By researching about the software ‘DiLer’ I came across the article “5 Fragen – 5 Antworten” with Mirko Sigloch on the platform ‘wissensschule.de’. In this article the authors explains the approach of his school to cope with digitizing of/and education now and in the future. He is sure that the current way of teaching will be insufficient to prepare the students for complex problems in the future. By developing the platform DiLer he and his colleagues wanted to create an open source platform that combines good usability and flexibility for an ideal online school environment. After their launch and testing phase they recognized how many school have been in need for such a platform. They presented the software to the ministry of culture of the federal state Baden-Württemberg but they wanted to hold on to the old structures. In the course of the article, he finally gets very emotional about the current status of digitalisation in school that seems to be rather regressive. His call for a hybrid teaching structure makes sense from my point of view when reading, but I am sure that the advantages of the present teaching structure should not be neglected. This discussion definitely needs more research from my side and I don’t see myself in the responsibility to take a position in it (but I am still curious about the different voices about this boundary topic). I already had a quick look into the theses of Lisa Rosa which I want to examine in another blog post.

Links

https://www.digitale-lernumgebung.de/

https://www.wissensschule.de/5-fragen-5-antworten-schule_digital-mit-mirko-sigloch/

https://shiftingschool.wordpress.com/about/

0# | Collaborative learning processes

For this blog entry I chose to examine the paper “Collaborative Learning with Interactive Music Systems” from Adnan Marquez-Borbon. It is presented on the website of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME-20). It is a bit off-topic but relevant for the lecture ‘Interaction Design’.

The paper draws a new perspective on how to learn a new instrument – more specifically an interactive digital music system. The designers of those instruments are often the only performers and do not have many copies of their specific instrument. In general they often do not have instructional informations aside from a technical document (if existent) what makes it hard to learn it in a traditional way. The ‘traditional way’ means to first learn the musical notation and then the according application to the instrument. This way means a very linear and structured process of learning. The teacher transmits knowledge, evaluates the technical proficiency, musical accuracy and the appropriateness of style of the student. But this approach ignores the diversity of alternative musical practices and approaches. In an interactive digital music system the musical text and notation are not obligatory central to the practice. It lives from variable and numerous practices and the form of documentation applies to that. The learning process is therefore more complex and probably not tangible with the traditional way to learn an instrument.

The author describes an open-ended, exploratory and collective learning approach to learn a technologically mediated instrument and with that to overcome the traditional way of learning an instrument. The so called ‘socially mediated learning’ process centres collaborative learning and should provide a flexible and adaptable learning environment. This space is unlimited in musical exploration, creativity and bringing in additional musical skills of students. Learning by imitating other learners can lead to the extension of the own capabilities of students. The challenge of collective learning is to keep up the motivation and let the students take responsibilities in their freedom of learning (like setting subjectives). The teacher becomes a guide and is not longer an authority. 

As a method the author developed a new instrument with a 3D printed case, two outward facing speaker, four push buttons controlling pitches organised in a one-octave chromatic scale, two linear soft potentiometer (controlling the pitch & other) and a force-sensing resistor controls the output volume. The volunteers have been three people with traditional music education and extensive performance experience but with no experience in performing with musical technologies or interactive musical systems. They learned to play the instrument in group sessions over a period of six months. 

As a result they actually started to learn from each other, imitated and/or extended each others findings and were learning effectively together. Furthermore they started to make up their own learning structures by noting down individual musical notations as a learning aid. They even started to come up with group exercises and created own compositions in order to rehearse and perform together. The participants developed their own style in playing but also found a way to play together. Even without fixed learning structures they started to self-organise their capacities and activities as well as learning goals which motivated and oriented them. 

Due to the flexible exchange of ideas and techniques the participants found a unified conceptualisation and usage of the instrument. Both, the whole group and the individual learner benefit from the rich learning opportunities in the open and flexible learning structure.

My resume: Personally, I never thought about how we learn to play instruments – even though I myself learned the musical notation and how to play the flute and the piano. Looking back I realise that even as a kid the linear learning structure is very hard to accomplish in the beginning. I am sure I would have loved to learn with such an open and collaborative learning approach that Adnan Marquez-Borbon suggests. 

Keeping in mind, that the approach is aimed for more complex and often unique technologically mediated instruments I am sure, that this structure can be helpful also in other fields of computer-mediated channels like new and unknown software. Since a lot of daily tasks are getting more complex day by day I think we should see a collaborative learning approach as a serious opportunity to enhance not only our learning processes but also ideation processes in terms of innovative design. I currently started my summer job in the area of ‘making’ – means building, tinkering around and hacking all kind of old electronic rubbish in order to create new stuff, new ideas and appreciate creativity from a new, more practical perspective. This kind of practical process also nourishes from collaborative exchange of ideas and knowledge which is in my opinion a really fruitful way of creation. 

05 | Online interaction scenario: Experience Map

In this entry and following entries I want to find out which tools and methods can enhance the effectiveness of online interaction. Due to the ongoing lockdown we are still dependent on managing nearly all of our communication and interactive activities online. Recently I observed that some of those online meetings took a lot longer than I expected (based on previous experiences with presence group work). On the other hand, I have heard from some lecturers that they do not have enough time in online lectures for their content in comparison to presence lectures. So what is the matter with timing in online interaction? As I examined in a previous entry, every online interaction is based on a different occasion, context, and goal. Therefore I assume that the effectiveness of each meeting is influenced by different factors. Regarding my role as an interaction designer I want to find out what are the influencing factors, how they are related and most important: How to improve them in order to enhance the online interactions? To achieve that I am going to examine different scenarios that are based on my own experience, go on with observing similar situations, find out more about theoretical background through secondary research and also do interviews and testings with users.

In order to use common methods I wanted to do an experience map. An experience map helps to see the big picture of the customer journey without going too much into detail. It helps to uncover needs and pain points before having a look at a too specific product. As a persona I choose the following person:
Sophie, female, 25 years old, is currently studying for her master’s degree in “Translation and Dialogue Interpreting”. She is really social, loves to cook and bake and lives in a shared flat in Graz. Due to the pandemic she has to follow her lectures at home for one year now. Because translating and interpreting needs a lot of training, practical experiences and good equipement studying online is giving her a really hard time.

Own visualization, Marie Kunzmann, 14.05.2021

I found out that Sophie has a few difficulties which are surely transferable to other students’ experiences. With the recommendation section I could collect some ideas on how to improve her situation. Every experience is based on individual characteristics and the context. Having that in mind I want to go on with methods like the experience map to find out more about other use groups.

Sources:
https://xd.adobe.com/ideas/process/user-research/user-experience-mapping/, last review 14.05.2021
– Jens Jacobsen, Lorena Mayer: Praxisbuch Usability und UX, Rheinwerk Computing, 2019

04 | How do we communicate online? part 2

In my last entry I was examining about the paper “Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction” of Joseph B. Walther from 1996. In this second entry about it, I want to focus on the hyperpersonal interaction. Nowadays the research of Walther is the origin of the “hyperpersonal model” which basically suggests that CMC (computer-mediated communication) can transform our face-to-face based interpersonal relationships or even surpass them. But why should a relationship without the ability to see or hear someone be more intimate than interacting in real life? 

The hyperpersonal model is based on the classic communication elements: Sender, receiver, channel and feedback. Walther is examining about what happens to each of these elements if the communication happens computer mediated instead of FtF (= face to face).

  1. The receiver: Idealized perception

Because of the lack of social context cues communication receivers tend to search for every subtle social context or personality cue they can find and give them a particular great value – even an “over attribution”. The results are stereotypical impressions built on merger or rather unqualified information cues like misspellings or overdone punctuation (!!!). If the communication partners already know each other, they may already know the paralinguistic expressions and can decode them. And if the receiver likes the sender or even only got a positive impression of her/him in advance (e.g. checking a social media profile or hearing a positive reputation = “I could like her/him, she/he is like me”), the impression or decoding of the received message will be positively affected. In this case the receiver has no interfering or disproving nonverbal cues what leads to a strong idealisation of the sender and their attraction. 

2. The sender: Selective (and optimised) self-presentation

People tend to present themselves as optimal in order to be liked and accepted by others. Asynchronous CMC has many opportunities for self-optimization: Senders can reread, correct and optimise their messages and everything else they send out (like social media posts) to an unlimited extent. With that opportunity senders are able to show themselves in their desired manner and “censor” every unliked or unsuitable characteristic. Selective self-presentation is a natural FtF phenomenon (like preparing for a job interview or dating someone) but the opportunities of CMC enhance it in an already supernormal way. I think most of us know that in terms of social media this can have negative effects like for example presenting oneself as somebody else – maybe even someone more optimal. But thinking of communication only, this can be also a chance for the sender: Filtering everything unnecessarily out and focusing on the message and its expression. 

3. The channel

As mentioned the channels of asynchronous CMC gives the communication participants favourable opportunities to communicate and present themselves in the way they like. For Walther it is incorrect to try to make the CMC experience feel or adjust like FtF interaction because this is not possible to the full extent. The users should rather use CMC for its own advantages. The cognitive load during a FtF interaction is a lot higher than in CMC: It requires a higher level of psychic, sensory and emotional involvement. From this perspective asynchronous CMC leads to more conversational relaxation and a better focus of mental energy on the messages’ content. 

4. The feedback: Intensification loop

The examination of  the last element is for me the most interesting because I was not aware of the following argument. Feedback in the communication interaction is crucial for developing a relationship. In point 1 “the receiver” we saw that the users of CMC tend to magnify every minimal cues they can find, what is also valuable in terms of feedback. In combination with behavioural confirmation (having personal expectations from others and acting in a certain way in order to make them confirm them) this leads to an intensified feedback loop. The involved self-optimisation then leads to a positively enhanced picture of the other communication participant. In other words: By self-optimising our own messages we make our communication partner feedback something positive which then leads again to a positive answer from us. Over a long time, this loop eventually intensifies the relationship.

In order to enhance my research to more recent findings I include Walther’s recent viewpoint of the hyperpersonal model. If you are interested in this topics I recommend watching the following talk from the year 2018:

Computer-Mediated Communication and Hyperpersonal Interaction (2018), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQEHU5ryPfQ

In the video Walther brings up some studies he did in the past. The insight I gained from one of them is that by trying to convince someone via CMC one is also convincing yourself about that topic. With that in mind we could go on with that and argue that self-optimisation should result in an optimised picture about our self. Assuming this were indeed the case this could not lead to an intensification loop but an self-optimisation loop in terms of presenting yourself without any communication partner (like posting something on social media): You optimise your image online and then try to even perfect that – just because that is the picture you created about yourself beforehand. Would this mean that computer mediated communication not only “hyperpersonalizes” your interpersonal relationships & communication but also enables you to transform into the person you aiming to be? Would this self-optimisation loop be endless and therefore become a disappointing and energy consuming delusion? 

Sources:
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0160.xml#:~:text=Computer%2Dmediated%20communication%20(CMC),%2C%20and%2For%20video%20messages (last review: 02.05.2021)
– Joseph B. Walther: “Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction”, 1996, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009365096023001001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQEHU5ryPfQ, 2018 (last review: 02.05.2021)

03 | How do we communicate online? part 1

In terms of researching communication models (specifically online) I came across different perspectives which in my eyes are worth examining in my entries. I found a lot of literature about online communication from the years of approx. 1990-2000 which mainly focused on the differences of online and offline communication. Even Though there are further researches in recent years I find this fundamental quintessential for completely understanding my topic.

Computer-Mediated Communication or short CMC is basically describing human communication via networked computers. This communication form can be synchronous or asynchronous and is used to exchange text, audio, and/or video messages. The number of participants can differ from one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-many. The separation in synchronous or asynchronous communication is of great relevance in the term of CMC. Synchronous communication like via video or audio calls includes all participants in real time and happens simultaneously. As soon as the sender does not receive an immediate response from the receiver the communication is asynchronous. Examples for that would be mails and text messages. 

Early research focused on how the communication channel ‘computer’ changes our communication and how it differs from the way we used to communicate. At first, relatively negative aspects were highlighted, such as the lack of socio-contextual information (I touched on this in the first semester). Alternative models later emphasized that the user adapts to the limitations of the channels and develops alternative strategies (such as the use of emoticons). Furthermore it became clear that the boundary between the real and the virtual communication was more and more blurred and is now becoming interactive instead. But how does this affect our way of communicating? What are the advantages? The disadvantages? 

To find out more about this question I started with early research about CMC. I read the paper “Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction” of Joseph B. Walther from 1996. In this paper, the term CMC includes only text-based communication. The main research question asked if CMC causes a limitation or liberation of communication and interaction. 

One common sense at that time was that CMC is highly impersonal, task-oriented and can only stay on an informative level due to the lack of social context cues. Alternative findings showed a contrasting picture: CMC was stated to be just as personal as FtF (face-to-face) interactions or even surpassed them. This was especially a conclusion of the examination of virtual communities, online friendships and online dating. With these perspectives in mind CMC seemed to have no consistent effects because of the contrasting results at that time. Walther wanted to identify common elements that play a role in all these outcomes. Therefore he first examines about the terms interpersonal and impersonal interactions regarding CMC:

Text-based CMC seems to be more impersonal because of the lack of nonverbal / social context cues. The message receiver cannot alter the mood of text messages and needs to interpret it. Alternative findings show that the user starts to adapt their communication to the limitation of only written communication and finds other cues in punctuation or language. Walther comes to the conclusion that CMC is not certainly less personal than FtF interaction but requires more time investment. The effective outcome of a CMC conversation is dependent on the familiarity of the participants and the conversation context (mediated, non-mediated). Regarding group work he suggests that it could be helpful to start the first brainstorm project phase via CMC and come together for the evaluation and decision phase in real life. In his point of view the first phase of brainstorming ideas can benefit from the non-hierarchical and more or less anonyme structure of CMC because each idea receives the same attention. For him, the second phase of evaluation and decision making needs more social context cues because the discussion enters a more personal level.

Of course the paper is a bit older and nowadays group work is not only limited to only CMC or FtF interactions. But I think it could be worthy to think about it a little closer since I came from a working background with old structures of endless mail and meeting conversations and discussion with no conclusion. Do we always choose the right media to communicate? Could we enhance our meetings with evaluating our communication channel from another, more thought through perspective? We are so used to communicate via text messages and sometimes forget that everyone has another ‘decoding’ system for it. For example exclamation marks: Sometimes we use them more or less unintentionally but they can have a major effect on the sender’s interpretation of the intonation. Just look at this sentence and reflect how you read it and how you felt while reading:

  1. I don’t think so!!
  2. I don’t think so.

I could bet that the first sentence feels more aggressive than the second one did. Or did it didn’t bother you at all? I will never know, because my decoding system will always differ (no matter if in a large or small scale) from others. The same goes with the usage of emojis. Some of them seem to have a single minded message but can be decoded in different ways. An example for that can be the winking smiley 😉 For some it is just a blink of an eye, for others something ambiguous and for some it is even a passive aggressive gesture of provocation.

Sources:
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0160.xml#:~:text=Computer%2Dmediated%20communication%20(CMC),%2C%20and%2For%20video%20messages (last review: 18.04.2021)
– Joseph B. Walther: “Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction”, 1996, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009365096023001001

02 | Online meeting occasions & activities

Why do we meet and what do we do during the meeting? A subjective point of view.

In this entry I want to examine the reasons to meet online ( – I know that they are often very individual and personal, but I think that there are currently some common reasons). In order to clear my mind, I made (again) a mind-map to collect every common and possible reason to meet online and the activities during. The mind-map is showing my own current observations and experiences from a subjective point of view.

In the mind-map I made a separation (blue-coloured & blue background) between “official” and “private” meetings which could also be described as formal and informal meeting occasions. For me, a formal meeting is for example at the workplace, in education or anywhere else where you come together with anyone other than your friends and family like colleagues, acquaintances or even strangers. But why make this separation? Imagine going to such a ‘formal’  meeting: The place, the people, your feelings. Would you act like in a private meeting with your best friend? Probably not. Therefore I think it is crucial to think about the meeting occasion in order to come up with the best design solution for the associated interaction tool. Within this separation, a further gradation can be identified (blue-coloured). It shows the possible meeting categories such as lectures, workshops or events as well as a meeting with a group or 1:1 with only one friend. The activities (green-coloured) around them show that the separation into formal and informal meeting occasions is not enough and has to be more specific on a deeper level. All these activities include specific needs and require individual consideration in upcoming design solutions.

If you have a more objective look at those activities, you can recognise that they are mostly redundant. This basis could be helpful in terms of creating an interaction tool that meets the most common and being individually adjustable for specific needs later on. Let’s sum up the mind-map in a list to find the common activities.

Before the meeting (could also happen during the meeting)

  • Checking own video (background, angle, lightning)
  • Checking own audio input (quality, device)
  • Checking the screenshare possibilities
  • Checking the chat possibilities

While the meeting

  • Using own video (turn on&off, switch background, use filters)
  • Using own audio input (mute&unmute)
  • Receiving video of others (adjusting video interface, checking who’s speaking)
  • Checking audio of others (quality, volume)
  • Using the screenshare possibilities
  • Using the chat possibilities

Official meetings

  • Lecture, workshop & talks (mostly work meetings; either in groups or 1:1)
    • Audio & Video input of lecturer/speaker/moderator
    • Screensharing
    • Interactive work (polls, whiteboard)
    • Give feedback (reactions, questions)
    • Receive feedback (reactions, questions)
    • Discussions with all participants (via audio or chat)
  • Event
    • Audio & Video input of speaker/moderator
    • Livestream
    • Give feedback (reactions, questions)
    • Receive feedback (reactions, questions)

Private meetings

  • Group
    • Expressing emotions/reactions
    • Receiving emotions/reactions
    • Interactive tools (polls, games, plan activities)
    • Talking / discussions (simultaneously)
  • 1:1
    • Interactive tools (polls, games, plan activities)
    • Talking about personal issues (simultaneously)

All these activities have different reasons and goals within the digital interaction of web meetings. In order to reach a user friendly interaction tool it is necessary to provide the user an effective, efficient and satisfying way to reach their goals (referring to the Usability ISO Norm  92411). Because of the variety of the activity goals, I decided to group them in the following way:

The users input

  • Checking own video beforehand (background, angle, lightning)
  • Checking own audio (quality, device)
  • Using own video (turn on&off, switch background, use filters)
  • Using audio output (mute&unmute)
  • Screensharing/Livestream
  • Expressing feedback (emotions/reactions)
  • Insert a chat message

Active interaction between user and communication partner

  • Interactive tools (polls, games, plan activities)
  • Talking / discussions (simultaneously)

The output of the communication partner

  • Checking audio of others (quality, volume)
  • Receiving video  (adjusting video interface, checking who’s speaking)
  • Using audio input (adjust volume)
  • Screensharing/Livestream
  • Receive feedback (reactions, questions)
  • Receive chat messages

The list shows that most activities can be divided into input and output which suggests that simultaneous interactive communication options are somehow lacking. This matches my findings of last semester: Online meetings are mostly not simultaneously what causes communication issues. While reflecting my findings, I recognised that the division in input and output reminded me of the Shannon-Weaver communication model and the variations of it2. Therefore I would like to go on with a deeper look into communication models as well as use case scenarios and other usability methods in my next entries. As usual I’d love to hear about your experiences with online meetings. Feel free to write me 🙂

1 http://www.handbuch-usability.de/iso-9241.html (last review: 29.03.2021)
2 https://lehrbuch-psychologie.springer.com/sites/default/files/atoms/files/roehner-schuetz_probekapitel_2.pdf (last review: 29.03.2021)