In our last article on Johnny Holland we talked about the ‘interpret’ stage of the Social Life of Visualization. This was where a visualization can be tweaked so that the meaning of the data can be seen in a different way and annotated on so that the individual insights that users create can be displayed. The final stage in the shared storytelling process that will be explored in this article is where the tweaking and annotations made to the visualization are captured so the insights can be communicated to others in the community.

… »

In our previous article on Johnny we outlined the second stage of The Social Life of Visualization, which was the capture stage. If you missed reading it, it dealt with creating an interface that allowed a user to upload a piece of data, create a visualization that expressed an idea about the underlying dataset, and provide the visualization with an identity so that it can exist within an object-centred social network. This allows other people to join in discussions around it. In this article we outline the philosophies and design implications of the interpretation phases such as the notion of sensemaking. We also outline how people can use a data visualization as an interface to explore and make realizations about their data using interactive techniques like sliders and annotations as they go.

… »

In our last article on Johnny Holland we provided an overview of what a ’social life of a visualization’ might look like. Based on a person-centered social network, it showed how the identity of the visualization was important, and how having this allowed the underlying data to retain its integrity and facilitated the process of people interacting around it. Its implementation created a shared storytelling experience around visualization, and we broke this up into three phases; create, interpret and capture.  In this second article, we’ll delve more deeply into the creation phase of the ’social life of visualization’; including its rationale and the design challenges that it represents.

… »

Recently I came across an article in the Wall Street Journal about online ratings. The article, which surveys a number of online properties, cites the tendency to 4.3: On the Internet, Everyone’s a Critic But They’re Not Very Critical. The article’s authors pretty much capture what many of us get intuitively about why online ratings really don’t work, but I thought I’d break this down from a social interaction design perspective to get at some of the causes of this. … »

In 2009 we are in the midst of an interesting era for data visualization, particularly as it becomes coupled with the social web. Increasing processing speed, bandwidth and storage capacity are making it relatively simple to render and access visual representations of data. Developers have released libraries of code so we can easily create our own visualizations; and access to all kinds of data is becoming incredibly standardized, particularly through the use of APIs. So as visualization becomes much more straightforward to integrate into online environments, it makes sense to rethink how it can best be used in this setting. … »

This post is about social interaction design. I’ve been gestating around the concept of “frames” for the past couple weeks. Frames of meaning, frames of experience, and frames as a concept for a user-centric description of social interactions. … »

Here in Drupal7 User Experience Project land we’ve been moving from ‘iteration zero’ to the actual production iterations. In iteration zero we’ve been doing a lot of our strategic thinking and documenting, but now it is time to start producing output that the developers who are working with us on this project can turn into something that will be contributed to the Drupal7 Project. … »

Marshall McLuhan taught us that every medium uses a previous medium as its content. The same applies to social media. But in any social technology the progression of technology and design innovation is accompanied by the increasing complexity of the social practices it enables. This is as true of the stirrup (Mongol warriors, jousting, cattle-herding, equestrian games) as it is of television (reformatted radio plays, stand-up routines, comedy shows, soaps, reality tv) and, most recently, securitized investment vehicles (asset-backed, mortgage-backed, credit default swaps, derived credit swaps, synthetics, even cubed derivatives). At each stage in the “evolution” of the technology, social uses and practices enable corresponding cultural “progress” of increased complexity. … »

We have covered just three forms of social action common to one kind of social media application. There are others more important to social networking, profile-based sites, mobile, and other kinds of social media. They include the form of self-presentation (profiles), the form of social networking (friends and friends of friends), the form of social gaming (apps, widgets, and games), to mention just three. But our goal here was to use lifestreaming applications as an introduction to applied social interaction design, and we chose to focus on temporality, audience presence, and communication.

… »

In order to proceed now with these examples, we need to develop our framework further to account for and describe what’s on the screen in terms of individual user experiences and aggregate social practices. We will do this on the basis of the social action systems touched on above. We will structure these social action systems into forms. While an imperfect term, “form” conveys the degree of structure and organization as well as materiality we are looking for. “Frames” could work also, or possibly “formats” — but both of those terms carry other connotations. Frames are used mostly with “perspectives” of experience; and formats for visual treatments or media forms. Our forms of social action will be user-centric, in that they will start from user activity and behavior, but will accommodate the resulting production of social content also. These forms will combine social media acts, actions, and activities, and provide us with an interpretive schema layered on top of conventional interface and design frameworks. Forms support the two major types of social action, but are material technical implementations, and so require slightly different treatment. They have a several components, including: visual, functional, temporal, and content components. (Note that forms do not describe user intentions or motives—those require a psychological framework for user behaviors. The psychology of social media use practices will describe what users “think” is going on; forms will describe what we think is going on.) … »