Buddy lists are a main feature of virtual third place environments and have the potential to do more for its users, especially since these virtual communities are being sought after to fill the void of the depleting physical third place. I question the design of tools, like the buddy list, and whether or not they are compatable with how participants are using the space. This design investigation starts to wonder how these tools could be different? What other functions could the buddy list space privilege (in addition to online status)? What could this information look like and how could it facilitate connections in online communities? I approached this query as a spatial investigation centering on how users relate to their friends and how the friends relate to each other.
the current graphic standard
As of now, these iterations keep the same minimizing and messaging controls of original buddy lists.
I. friend connectedness
Here the contacts tab in the virtual environment is a structurally dynamic container - where online participants move around, and offline icons are static. Friends that are connected are automatically pulled closer in proximity, so the arrangement of the buddy icons constantly react to other people's online activity. These instantaneous groupings reveal commonalities among your contacts that are currently unseen.
II. online time
This format privileges the amount of computer activity spent in the virtual community; longer durations of time result in a placement closer to the front of the line on your friend’s buddy list. I am not necessarily focused on motivating people to invest more of their time in virtual communities, but it would be interesting to see if a buddy list format could encourage a specific behavior. Would users consciously/subconsciously stay logged in for longer periods of time to keep their place in line?
III. audio clips
Buddy icons are given the dual purpose of being an identifying image and self recorded sound clip. Users would be able to make public updates or private messages with the advantage of using their own voice. These recordings are a small level of exposure that still protects anonymity and works harder (than what is being currently used) to connect friends. If anything, it finally reaffirms that Sheila is not really a guy.
IV. virtual location
This format acts as a map that constantly lets you know where you are in relation to your friends. Not only does it say who is online, but where you can go to meet up with them. Users would be forced to explore the space in order to see where their friends are, which could potentially encourage the assembly of groups - since popoulated areas would be visible on the map.
Subscribe Feed (RSS)
3 comments:
Laura,
You’ve stepped into a wonderfully rich area of research. Through your investigation you’re illuminating what has become, theoretically, invisible. Meaning, users have accepted buddy list conventions and through your work, you’ve shed light on the fact that they are substandard.
Currently, your investigations explore only virtual environments, but what about the lists operating exclusively in our operating systems (AIM, Jabber, MSN Messenger, etc.)? More over, how would your explorations change if all buddies are not contained within a singular environmental space, and only interacting because of the list itself? This could present important aspects of buddy interaction and relationships you may be missing by focusing wholly on one online environment. For instance, in the fourth exploration proximity is a defining quality of presentation; how would you utilize proximity when the buddy lists are the applications and the buddies are interacting with their computers in differing ways? I wonder about this aspect of your investigation because you began by presenting a myriad of application buddy lists. But, based on the explorations you have shown, are you suggesting applications which only serve as a tool for chatting are not third place environments? It would help if you defined ‘third place environments’ and/or only displayed buddy lists that pertain to digital environments like Second Life.
In the second exploration I understand the investigation of time coming from current conventions of buddy lists; linear stacking based on specific amounts of time idol, etc. It would be interesting to see what happens when you push this idea farther away from known conventions; exploring greater abstraction of conventions and/or inventing new ones.
The third exploration is peculiar in that you are giving buddies another level of personal communication, which relates back to personalizing messages on answering machines. This makes me think it may be interesting to integrate other applications into buddy lists. For example, these personalized messages are similar to the information typed into Facebook, Twitter, etc. What happens when buddy lists obtain such information from these applications?
Also, you are relying heavily on avatars as representations of individuals in these spaces, which is not far removed from current buddy icons. A critical look into this particular facet could suggest ideas about self-image and reveal additional information on digital relationships and communication choices.
I hope you continue to explore this work; it appears to be quite fertile.
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
Thanks, I really appreciate your feedback.
Post a Comment