The Power of Weakness 2: Lead me not into instant messaging

Working the way I usually do – backed up powerfully by Wikipedia, Google; seriously revising drafts etc. – I sometimes wonder how on Earth pre-computer people were able to do any serious writing.

Of course, I also – paradoxically – sometimes wonder if I wouldn’t be able to work faster, better and with far greater personal gratification if it was just me and a clunky old type-writer alone in a secluded cabin deep in some Swedish forest.

I suppose most of us feel that way. Distractions and how to manage them is certainly a prevalent topic on blogs such as Lifehacker (offering tips on all aspects of your digital existence). Witness also the rise of no-nonsense retro-style full-screen word processors such as Writeroom and Dark Room. These offer to limit your options, for a price (while jDarkroom does it for free).

jDarkroom
Image 1: jDarkroom

Riding the wave, Gmail just introduced a useful new feature, giving users the ability to shut down email for a while.

Gmail_email_addict
Image 2: Gmail’s Email Addict feature

Such features clearly minimise distractions such as blinking new-email notifiers. But they also help us minimize temptations, that is they help us control our future behaviour by hiding temptations.

The Power of Weakness 1: Choose your users with care, objects!

I’m immensely fascinated by the ways in which we, the alleged Homo Sapiens, set up our environments and construct our objects in order to make them difficult to navigate and use.

And I’m not being the least bit sarcastic here. We do, deliberately, and for excellent reasons, limit others and (even, more fascinatingly, ourselves) from easily taking certain causes of action in the future.
Now, this general topic is of profound depth and importance. We’ll discuss that another time then, shall we?

Today, let’s limit ourselves to a mere minor aspect of these big questions: Designed objects which, by their design, test and select their users.

The most common of such objects is the lock. The lock is an object which selects among the pool of possible users by being inoperable without the key. Thus, a lock requires the user to be in possession of a certain object.

Objects can test users in two other ways.

First, they can test for a certain knowledge. This is merely another type of lock, typically manifested as the need to know a password.

Second, an object can test for a certain characteristic (and here I use the term characteristic to also cover abilities).

Child lock mechanism
Image 1: To open, you need to hold down the small white button, while first turning then sliding the lock to the left

An example of the latter is the child lock. The child lock is meant to impose minimal annoyance on the adult user wanting to open a window or a kitchen cupboard, while making it impossible (or very difficult) for a young child to operate it. A child lock typically tests for several characteristics: Physical strength, logical thinking, and dexterousness.

Billede083
Image 2: To get onto this climbing wall, you need to be of a certain height

The alternative to child locks (in the broadest sense) is often complete inoperability (blocking the window until the child grows up) or posting a human evaluator/guard. The latter approach is The Amusement Park approach – amusement park rides often demand that users be of a certain height. But unless the guard is awake, anyone could get on board.

Now you’re entitled to your own aesthetics, but in my opinion the child lock approach is by far the more elegant. I think objects which cannot be used by users who shouldn’t are simply cool.

Of course, we can the discuss how this relates to things like the politics of artefacts if you’re interested…

Oh, a knowledge test is sometimes used to test for age… But it’s pretty inaccurate and often functions more like a test of whether the user can read and use Google.

Facebook is upon us



Facebook, originally uploaded by Laughing Squid.

You may have noticed from that desperate plinking of your email client that Facebook is taking over the world. The invasion of Denmark started for real, relatively late, around October of this year.
I wrote a little analysis of the phenomenon for the newspaper Politiken a few weeks ago. If your Danish skills are up to it, you can read it.

The point, in essence, is that I see four main motivations for using Facebook:

1) Social necessity: You want to be where your friends are
2) Identity management: Being able to construct a self image, with great control and many options, is appealing
3) Worried curiosity: Who knows, something very important might be happening in there
4) Practical help: Keeping track of friends and weak ties through Facebook is simply practical

Of course, this list leaves out a factor: Hanging out on Facebook is simply entertaining (as Malouette mentions.). It is a constant cocktail party (although one with too little hard liqueur and too many zombies) and members of homo sapiens, as a rule, enjoy being social. Of course, to get all long-haired (and to protect my little list from criticism) one could argue that “fun” is a meta-factor. Using Facebook is “fun” because it satisfies “needs” such as the ones in my list.

Comments, questions and mad outbursts are welcome as always.

Facebook: Vi er blevet hypersociale

Analyse bragt i Politiken 18/11-2007

Af Jonas Heide Smith

Et bemærkelsesværdigt antal danskere tilmelder sig hver dag den sociale internettjeneste Facebook.

Tjenesten, der har over 50 millioner medlemmer på verdensplan, har på det seneste udvist vækstrater, der har sendt den til tops på oversigter over de største netværkstjenester i den vestlige verden. Men hvorfor er amerikanske Facebook så meget mere populær end de fleste konkurrenter? Og hvad er det i det hele taget, der i skrivende stund har motiveret, rundt regnet, 145.000 danskere til at tilmelde sig?

Lad os allerførst se på, hvordan tjenester som Facebook overhovedet fungerer. Typisk er de organiseret omkring brugernes profilsider, der i udgangspunktet indeholder brugerens grundlæggende demografiske data. Brugeren angiver, hvilke af systemets brugere vedkommende betragter som ’venner’, og knytter derved sin profil til disse venners profiler. Venner kan interagere med hinanden på flere måder. De kan skrive løst og fast på hinandens profilsider, publicere information om sig selv, som venner kan læse og kommentere, samt anvende særlige funktioner, der f.eks. tillader venner at spille små spil sammen, sammenligne filmsmag eller sende virtuelle gaver til hinanden.

Her er en vigtig ingrediens i Facebooks succesopskrift. Ved at åbne for, at andre virksomheder kan bygge små programmer, som Facebook-brugere frit kan forlyste sig med, har man åbnet for en kreativ gavebod af sjove, nyttige, tankevækkende og selvfølgelig til tider overflødige småtjenester, som brugerne kan boltre sig iblandt. Der er p.t. over 8.000 sådanne tilbud.

ET ANDET element i succesen er historisk. Facebook startede som en kommunikationsplatform for studerende ved Harvard College og udvidede kun gradvist til andre universiteter og siden til hele verden. Hermed fik man funktionaliteten på plads, mens man endnu havde en begrænset og velvillig brugergruppe, og man fik etableret en konstruktiv kultur på tjenesten, før man lukkede gud og hvermand indenfor. Idéen om at koble studerende fra samme årgang eller studium sammen er stadigvæk central på tjenesten og fungerer antageligt som indledende incitament for mange. Endelig tæller det naturligvis til Facebooks fordel, at man har kunnet lade sig inspirere af tidligere tjenester som Friendster og My-Space.

MEN HVAD ER DET SÅ, der får de ca. 145.000 danskere, og de 50 millioner andre brugere, til at skrive små beskeder på hinandens profiler og sende virtuelle drinks rundt i endeløse baner? Hvor får de tiden fra, og kunne de ikke bruge den bedre, f.eks. ved at læse bøger, lave lektier eller mødes på god gammeldags face to face-maner? Noget dybt og entydigt svar finder vi ikke i internetforskningen. Men der er formentlig tale om i hvert fald fire overordnede motivationstyper.

For det første er deltagelse for nogle ganske enkelt en forudsætning for at deltage i det sociale liv. Internetforskeren Danah Boyd nævner, at på spørgsmålet om, hvorfor de deltager på MySpace, svarer mange teenagere: »Fordi det er der, mine venner er«. Denne årsag kan vi kalde for ’social nødvendighed’.

En anden motivationsfaktor, der måske især er væsentlig for børn og unge, er muligheden for at eksperimentere med sin selvfremstilling. Man har på tjenester som Facebook og MySpace udstrakte muligheder for at fremstille sig selv, som man ønsker, og i øvrigt eksperimentere med social interaktion i relativt trygge omgivelser. Denne årsag til brug af tjenester som Facebook kan vi kalde ’identitetsudvikling’.

Den tredje forklaring er mere jordnær: Mange melder sig til af nysgerrighed. Mange danske brugere er tilmeldt Facebooks Danmark-netværk, og nogle placerer en kort besked på netværkets fælles opslagstavle. Et par af de nyeste lyder »Hvad sker der mon herinde.. :-)«, »Heya.. Nyt kød på markedet… HJÆÆÆLP…« og »Hejsa. Så er jeg også kommet her ind på Facebook.!! he he – Nu må vi se hva det bringer…«. Disse brugeres interesse er formentlig mestendels blevet vækket af den omfattende omtale i medierne. Der er tale om »bekymret nysgerrighed«.

Den fjerde forklaring er af samme banale kaliber, men bør ikke glemmes. Facebook fungerer som en dynamisk og levende telefonbog og hjælper brugere med at opretholde kontakt med hinanden på det ønskede niveau. Og tjenesten kan hjælpe med at organisere hverdagsaktiviteter blandt folk, der kender hinanden i forvejen. Her har vi at gøre med udsigt til ’praktisk hjælp’.

FLERE UNDERSØGELSER viser, at Facebook-brugere er langt mere optaget af at koble sig sammen med personer, de allerede kender, end af at møde fremmede. Så selv om det måske er mere interessant at tale om identitetsafprøvning, kan der faktisk være helt lavpraktiske årsager til at anvende sociale nettjenester. Dette faktum understreger noget meget centralt. Tror man, at Facebook-brugere forsømmer deres ’virkelige’ sociale liv til fordel for overfladisk placebo-interaktion, tager man grundigt fejl. Brugere af sociale nettjenester bygger, generelt set, et ekstra socialt lag oven på deres eksisterende forbindelser. De 130.000 danske Facebook-medlemmer konstruerer en social tillægsvirkelighed, der eksisterer parallelt – og med komplekse forbindelser – til den virkelighed, andre tager del i på arbejdspladser, i skoler og foreninger.

DER ER SÅLEDES ingen fare for, at sociale nettjenester fremelsker asociale karaktertræk og lokker folk til at flygte fra det sociale liv. Hvis man ønsker at bekymre sig, bør man måske snarere overveje, om det sociale liv ikke kan tage overhånd. Hvis man bruger al sin tid på at opbygge og pleje forbindelser og offentliggøre sine vurderinger af dette og hint, hvordan skal man så få de oplevelser og opnå den viden, som netværket netop kunne have glæde af? Spørg ikke mig, jeg skal ind og tjekke, om mine venner har fået nye venner.

Playful politics

A parliamentary election is almost upon is here in modest-sized Denmark. The current right-of-center government, supported by the nationalist Danish People’s Party, is being challenged by a left-of-center axis. With Christian Democrats unlikely to reach the (non-taxing) cut-off of 2% and our most left-wing party balancing on that same edge. Also, Helle Thorning-Schmidt – leader of the Social Democrats – could theoretically be the country’s first female prime minister.

Anyway, much has been said (not least in my course on Digital Rhetorics) about the esteemed candidates’ use of online media (for instance by knowledgeable colleague Lisbeth Klastrup). So let us instead focus on that less-dominant genre the political game.

We know how Howard Dean laid the foundations, and how former colleague Gonzalo Frasca helped the president of Uruguay (if we don’t know, we may want to read Ian Bogost’s recent book Persuasive Games).
In present day Denmark, however, political video games do not exactly overwhelm the politically curious citizen. But I have found a couple of specimens:

ScreenShot007
Overbudsbold: Made by a team of ITU students for DR. The player chooses a leader of a political party and an opponent to engage in a type of tennis in which the “ball” is a money bag growing bigger each time it is pushed over the net. The game comments on the tendency for candidates to attempt to top one another in promises. The idea, I believe, is that this practice is nothing but a silly game. Overbudsbold stands apart from the crowd in my opinion by being actually fun to play in its own right.

ScreenShot009
Så’ det ud: The youth branch of the Liberal party (in government) have published a game in which you (as current minister) place opposition leaders in a catapult and fling them as far as you can. No political statement is being made, to put it mildly. It’s slightly odd that the “heroes” are as caricatured as the opposition here, since no other attempts are being made at fairness.

ScreenShot016
Kampvalg is a game made by game developers Press Play. Here (as in Overbudsbold) two party leaders face of. But Press Play have exhanged Pong for Tekken in terms of inspiration. The player must attack the opponent using a small selection of aggressive moves.

ScreenShot019
Finally, ValgSpil ’07 is another developer showcase. Here you, as the player, must “survive a press meeting”, answering questions from reporters in an attempt to keep the general opinion on your side. The argument seems to be that party leaders face difficult a difficult challenge of presenting their policies without estranging voter groups.

In summary, only one game (“Så’ det ud”) with a political stance. The others hint/claim that politics is war – and, in the case of Overbudsbold, a rather silly exercise.
A somewhat underwhelming collection, perhaps. Did I leave out anything worthwhile?

Happy voting tomorrow, and may the best candidate obtain the highest score!

Sociology Master Thesis gets censored

In what seems to me a difficult PR challenge to both, DR (the Danish BBC equivalent) and Copenhagen University‘s Department of Sociology have collaborated in censoring a sociology master thesis. As reported in Information (upon which the following is based) Mille Buch-Andersen did a study of the organizational culture of DR’s symphonic orchestra.

While her supervisor apparently assured her repeatedly that the master thesis was ready for submission, an angry email from DR seems to have caused a change of heart at the department who urged/threatened Buch-Andersen to withdraw the thesis and revise it before resubmitting.
Having revised and received her degree, Buch-Andersen now says (in my translation):

Academically, I am very disappointed by the department. I am also surprised – no, I am speechless about this. It’s against everything which I thought sociology to be. And it is the direct opposite of what we are taught. We learn that it is the role of sociology to uncover power relations, abuse of power and conflicts in this regard. And that it is part of the discipline that our reports can sometimes be unpleasant reading to some.

That one has to hurt.
While both DR and the department claim “breaches of research ethics” – and while I’m sure there are still-unrevealed aspects of the case – two (in this context) powerful organizations threatening a single student who claims to be a victim of politics and academic cowardice is difficult to paint in pretty colors. One wonders if far less harm had come of letting the student simply submit the original thesis; the chosen strategy seems both exagerated and desperate, as in “what do they have to hide which is so light-sensitive?”.

A longing for subversion

Calvinball_small
I have, at times, questioned the extent to which actual players tend to subvert games to rebel against the goals. Probably I have crossed the line into polemics a couple of times with (I have thought or hoped) controversial statements that players simply tend to play games the way they are intended.
The reason for my childish behavior is not any great desire on my part for orderly, predictable play. I simply dislike the kind of progressive awe that tends to accompany the idea of the “active player”. Some people seriously want this to be true.
Crawford and Rutter in a chapter of Rutter and Bryce’s Understanding Digital Games write (in an off-hand remark, but still):

Kline et al. (2003) highlight the importance of an active audience model in considering digital game players. For instance, they cite examples of how gamers will subvert the preferred readings of games such as Civilization and SimCity.

Interesting. Let’s consult our Kline et al. (2003). On page 44 they write:

“For example, there have been valuable analysis of how ‘strategy games’ such as Civilization or Sim City can be played in ways that subvert the preferred readings of game designers.”

Kline et al. footnote their statement with references to

Bleeker, J. (1995). Urban Crisis: Past, Present and Virtual. Socialist Review, 24(1-2), 189-223. [Link to draft version]

and

Stephenson, W. (1999). The Microserfs Are Revolting: Sid Meier’s Civilization II [Electronic Version]. Bad Subjects from http://bad.eserver.org/issues/1999/45/stephenson.html.

I’m willing to examine these two references in a positive light. But even so, they really, really don’t – even to my most constructive reading – describe subversive, oppositional, or even active actual readings/playings of these games. Kline et al. are right, the papers discuss how the games in question can be played subversively – some curious slippage has occurred in Crawford and Rutter’s version.

The examples used don’t work.

My players-accept-the-game-goals polemics are quickly becoming tiresome – please supply them with just a little bit of opposition…

End of level for Gonzalo Frasca

Billede004(8)
Former Urugayan ITU resident and PhD program co-sufferer Gonzalo Frasca just (yesterday) told the world how games, play, and rhetorics are connected thus earning himself the non-refundable title of PhD.
Because of exams I could only attend the esteemed candidate’s presentation (thus missing out on the subsequent Q&A fun) but what I heard seemed both coherent and science-like. I cannot be more specific since I was concentrating on taking low-quality pictures with my clumsy phone.

Congratulations, Dr.