users are humans

Comparing Smartphone UIs: The Status Bar

04Feb10

This is the first installment in a series that will compare how various smartphone UIs approach UI conventions. I hope you find it interesting, although truthfully I’m doing it mostly for myself so I have a handy set of screenshots to access for comparing how a Blackberry does X compared to Symbian, or Android, or whatever.

In addition to the screenshots, I’ll try to comment on anything that strikes me as interesting…but feel free to pitch in in the comments. So, we’ll start with:

The Status Bar

The status bar is perhaps the most ubiquitous UI construct across smartphone UIs: It’s the little bar at the top that shows battery charge, carrier signal, time of day. On some platforms it is merely an information display, but on others it has some interactive elements. Let’s take a look at a few…

iPhone

The iPhone status bar is a simple information display: Signal strength, carrier, time, charge, and assorted other icons. It doesn’t have any interactive elements.

Status Bar, iPhone.

Android

Motorola has taken shots at the iPhone OS in its Droid ads, pointing out that the status bar on Android phones alerts users to incoming messages or other things. I’m of the opinion that it’s a worthy criticism of the iPhone: The modal nature of the iPhone alert pop-ups can be a distracting experience whereas the Android interface does a nice job of subtly alerting a user to incoming items of interest.

Android status bar showing incoming text message.

When a user touches the status bar, a drag element appears, suggesting that the user can reveal more from the status bar (this is especially hand if you want to find out more about that new text message).

When touching the status bar, an element appears suggesting that the user can drag the status window down.

So, let’s drag the element down:

Dragging down the alerts window on the Android status bar.

And here we are with the fully expanded alerts window, with a menu of things that could use my attention. All in all, I think Android does a very good job of subtly alerting the user to incoming alerts, and allowing them to view all alert items in a single place with a simple touch-and-drag gesture.

Android Alerts Window, Dragged Out of Status Bar

webOS

I know most people have written off webOS already…Palm just has no hope of competing against the other big phone OS players. Probably true, I guess, but I really enjoy the webOS. It just seems fun and pleasurable to use, although it’s not as smooth as iPhone or Android.

The webOS status status bar of course shows time, carrier, bars, etc. in its top pane. When alerts such as text messages come in, they are displayed in a scroll at the bottom.

Web OS Status Bar. Usual stuff at the top, and scrolling alerts at bottom.

Interestingly, the status bar starts to do double-duty when an app is opened, offering the app name as a touchable element as part of the status bar. Touch the element, and a contextual menu for that app opens.

webOS Status Bar w. App-Specific Contextual Menu

When in an app, the status bar will show the app name as a clickable element.

Touch the menu item, and a contextual menu pops up.

Blackberry

Blackberry? You get the usual stuff in the status bar, plus alert icons. Done and done.

Blackberry Status Bar, almost as simplified as iPhone.

Symbian

I’d never played too much with Symbian phones before stealing the office N97 to take some screenshots, and I must say it’s s somewhat underwhelming experience. The whole touch experience just seems very wonky and it’s easy to get lost in the UI.

The status bar is similarly inscrutable. I’m pretty sure the battery was fully charged when this image was taken, but you could hardly tell. And what does the X to the far left mean? No signal, maybe? Weird.

Symbian status bar.

Also strange is Symbian’s interactive element. Click to pop up and see…the time?

Symbian status bar, with not-entirely-helpful pop-up clock.

WinMo 6.5

WinMo 7 is supposed to come out…when? Soon? Anyway, the much-maligned Windows Mobile 6.5 isn’t so bad really, I think. It kind of acts like Windows (duh) so if you know your way around a PC then it’s not so bad.

The status bar as what you’d expect in terms of various status icons. The “Start” in the upper-left corner is touchable, as you would expect from using a windows machine, but the behavior is different. Touching “Start” toggles between a general wallpaper page (with clock) and a list of apps. It’s a little strange to try to use a UI convention from windows that has a certain expectation, and then see it behave differently on the phone.

The far-right of the status bar is clickable, and hows the apps currently running, similar to the windows task bar.

WinMo status bar. Notice clickable task-bar icon on far right.

Showing currently running programs after clicking in upper right. This is handy for hopping around applications. (Multi-tasking! Yes!)

Last Word

So, which of these is the best?

I definitely like how Android uses the status bar to subtly alert the user to alerts, and makes the status bar expandable to see all alert/status items that the user may wish to see.
And I like how WinMo makes it easy to hop between whatever apps the user has open.

Let me know if there are future UI conventions you’d like me to investigate, and thanks for reading.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: design, os, smartphone, ui

Mobile Web to outpace mobile apps?

03Feb10

Re-start!

Sorry, I’ve let this blog languish as I’ve transitioned to a new job and a new field of technology. Since July, I’ve been working on the user experience team for Fox Mobile Group, where we’re doing some interesting things on, yes, mobile phones.

Now I’m ready to start blogging again, and the blog will swing a bit away from social networking and social technology to mobile technology…although there’s plenty of crossover between the two.

Among the first blog posts, starting soon, will be a series of screenshot-by-screenshot comparisons on how different mobile OS’s approach particular UI constructs.

But first, figured I’d repost a quick article from MobileCrunch that echoes some of my thinking on whether mobile apps are long for this world, as compared to easier-to-develop-and-distribute services that run in a mobile browser.

Check it here: http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/02/03/mobile-web-may-beat-out-mobile-apps-in-the-long-run/

Nice to be back; see you soon.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Brief Thoughts: Activity Stream Scanning Affordances

14Apr09

What, you want more yammering on activity streams? My friend, look no further.

I got to thinking: what is the scanning behavior for users looking at an activity stream? More specifically, when scanning a stack of activity feed items, what visual cue is the user looking for to indicate that a certain feed merits more attention? And what does that imply for how activity feeds should be designed?

If we’re to go by the current trend in activity feed designs, author, or, more specifically, an iconographic depiction of author, is most important. The designs of Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook feeds all feature a profile photo prominently on the left-side of each activity feed item (and remember, the eye scans left-to-right, so the picture is what people see first).

Twitter feed with author pics as main differentiating characteristic.

MySpace feed, also with author pics as main differentiating characteristic.

This makes sense for these apps, since the content of these feeds is mostly homogeneous. With Twitter, merely status declaration. With MySpace: Same. Thus, one can scan and select to read based on how much one actually cares about the author of the activity bleep.

With Facebook, though, it’s a little more complex, as users are also posting links to images, Websites, and whatnot, in addition to simple declarations of status.

Facebook feed, also with left-hand author images, but more variance in what appears in the feed (links, video, images, etc.).

That heterogeneity of content starts to make the feed more visually confused and difficult to scan. In fact, I would argue the various graphics and links start to overshadow the simple status declarations.

Which brings us to Friendfeed. When it launched, FriendFeed’s design implied that it was actually the originating application that was most important. You could scan app icons for Twitter, or del.icio.us, or whatever, and then read title and author if the application was something interesting to you.

Old FriendFeed design, placing emphasis on icons for the originating applications.

But now FriendFeed has switched to be more Twitter-like, with author images as the key differentiating aspect of each activity bleep. The originating app is significantly downplayed.

New FriendFeed design, emphasizing author images.

What’s interesting here is that the implication is, again, I only really care about the author of the bleep, and much less than in where that bleep originated from.

Alright, back to our questions. “When scanning a stack of activity feed items, what visual cue is the user looking for to indicate that a certain feed merits more attention?” Well, in FriendFeed or any other heterogeneous activity feed, I would argue that the reader is equally interested in: author, originating application, and title of the bleep.

This would go doubly in, say, the enterprise context, where I might be much more interested in seeing all activity from, say, a wiki, and filter (in my mind) next on author or title.

Next question: “What does that imply for how activity feeds should be designed?” Well, a good design would be able to allow users to self-select what they’re scanning on, any of those three characteristics, and allow equally easy scanning, depending.

What would that look like? Well, uhhh. Here’s a quick stab at redesigning the FriendFeed stream to allow users to scan on any of those three characteristics.

Five-minute redesign of FriendFeed.

Essentially this design makes the following arguments:

The mind will still scan primarily on author icon. The embedded originating-app icon will give a bit more context before the user scans the item title.
If author icon and app icon were enough to pause the reader in his scan, go straight into the item title where user can get full information.
Note that author name is significantly downplayed (in gray at bottom rather than large link in front of item title). This assumes that once you see the icon, you know who the author is, and repeating it just gets in the way of the scan.

Not sure it really works, but I do think that depending on the intent of the user, it’s difficult to say categorically that author or originating app or title is most important, so a good design should be able to communicate all three. Thoughts?

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Can your brain really handle all that activity stream junk?

09Apr09

Seems like you can’t swing a dead cat around without hitting someone that’s got an activity stream built into their app, or their app is a an aggregator of activity streams. Not surprising. Twitter is enormously popular. People looove to read those tweets. This is affecting how other consumer products look at their activity UIs.

But is there, perhaps, going to be a backlash to the total information awareness wrought by having to read all these streams? Some thoughts:

Facebook rolled out its new design recently, basically making the homepage much more Twitter-like. Result: Everyone seems to hate it. I know that I personally am much more aggressively “hide”ing people in Facebook that I don’t care about (and that is, frankly, most of my connections) because I just can’t deal with all the overload.

Facebook's Twitter-like new look. I need to hide annoying people more aggressively.

Friendfeed, which is kind of an uber-aggregator of activity feeds from Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, etc. etc., has rolled out an interesting new UI at http://beta.friendfeed.com. This thing will actually show LIVE updates of your friends’ activity feeds, and, if you’ve got enough friends, will get going so fast you can’t keep up with it. They had to add a “pause” button!

FriendFeed's new Twitter-like interface. Note the "pause" button, upper-right.

Finally, consider how recently even CNN cleaned up the “UI” of their TV broadcast, removing all that constant ticker junk. They think that people are getting tired of it.

New, ticker-less CNN graphics.

Jeremiah Owyang has a quick, nice piece on how UI needs to do a better job of helping users sort the activity stream in a way that makes sense to them. Sure, definitely, but harder to do than to say. Check Jeremiah’s thoughts here.

So hey, here’s a contrarian thought: Are activity streams just another goddamn email inbox? And when they get choked with too much data, will we just stagger like zombies to some new UI/service that seems like The Solution but is actually desirable merely because it’s not clogged with crap yet?

Filed under: Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Social Networking Data Portability Cheat Sheet

12Dec08

I’m building this post as a personal cheat sheet for Data Portability efforts in social networking. Coz I can’t keep it straight. Give me a few days to construct it, at which point I’ll probably make it a separate page on this here blog.

Please let me know if you see errors, or have comments. Frankly this stuff is pretty confusing; I’m happy to have any mistakes corrected.

So, data portability in social networks is about sharing data about users (name, favorite band, who your friends are, etc.) among different Web sites and different social networks. Specifically you can think about data portability in the following ways:

Who I Am (authentication/ID and profile info)
Who I Know (social graph)
What’s Going On (feeds of personal and friend activity)
App Portability (sticking apps/widgets on other networks)

Further, it’s useful to think about those bulletpoints in terms of:

Data In (to your own social network, say, SelectMinds corporate social networking apps)
Data Out (to other networks, say, LinkedIn or Facebook)

Now, there are basically four horses out there. The Open Stack including OpenID, using (mostly) open standards to accomplish data portability; Google Friend Connect and OpenID which uses both the open standard OpenID and Google’s Friend Connect; Facebook Connect and the Facebook APIs, being used by Facebook and various sites that want to cash in on the Facebook mojo, and MySpace’s MySpaceID. On the outside is LinkedIn, which is keeping its user data tightly held, although it is opening up a bit.

Finally, on the enterprise side, Google and Salesforce.com are getting very cozy, while Microsoft’s Sharepoint is still in the realm of talking only to other Microsoft apps, or one-off integrations.

Brief Thoughts: Usability vs. Expertise

16Nov08

I’m feeling bloody-minded and have been re-reading Don Norman’s “Design of Everyday Things.” I got on this kick because I was annoyed at Norman’s article in the latest Interactions: in discussing “social signals” (indicators of status left by human activity–for example, an empty train platform indicating you’ve missed your train) Norman has unkind words regarding “affordances”, a cherished interaction-design concept.

Affordances basically suggest how one might interact with an object. Say, the holes on scissor handles suggest your fingers go there, or the beveling of a UI button suggest that it is something to be clicked on. While psychologist James J. Gibson coined the idea in 1977, Norman borrowed the concept for “Design of Every Day Things,” cited it continuously, and basically grafted the idea into the heads of a generation of interaction designers (like me).

Now, Norman is suggesting we “forget affordances” and concentrate on social signals. Okay, Norman’s a bomb-thrower, and he probably doesn’t really mean it. There’s nothing wrong with considering a range of concepts and theories when considering how best to design a set of interactions around an object or service.

BUT: Norman’s casual murder of affordances got under my skin, and I started re-reading “Design of Everyday Things.” I’m only two chapters in, but one of the things I’m struck by, now that I’m out of grad school and less of a usability zealot, is Norman’s apparent belief that any object should be immediately understandable and usable, and, by implication, Norman’s rejection of expert utility. Secretaries should not need to be trained to use advanced phone functions; film machines should be grasped by any ol’ schmo.

I may go to user-centered design hell for it, but: I don’t agree. There is a place for experts using machines tuned to their trained and developed sensitivities. Call me elitist, but I say: YouTube’s singular impact is to prove that most people shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a videocamera.

This all made me think of Steve Albini’s (engineer of Nirvana’s “In Utero”, dontcha know) famous mid-’90s rant “The Problem with Music.” In the midst of a wide-ranging screed against the music industry, Albini complains that untrained “crappy engineers” are recording and producing music with (then) new, easy-to-use DAT machines. saying: “Tape machines ought to be big and cumbersome and difficult to use, if only to keep the riff-raff out. DAT machines make it possible for morons to make a living and do damage to the music we all have to listen to.”

I agree. Not everything should be user-friendly.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 6 Comments
Tags: usability affordances norman albini

CSCW Session – Mathletics: Markets and Modeling

12Nov08

Moderator: “Nothing says 8:30 a.m. on the last day of the conference like a math and theory-heavy session.”

Can Markets Help: Applying Market Mechanisms to Improve Synchronous Communication

CMU People. Natch.

Basic upshot: Sender does not now how costly interruption is to the receivers, and the receivers do not know how important the communication is to the sender.

Possible solutions:

Full disclosure: disclose all information in communication. Problems: Privacy issues; people may not use the disclosed information.
Payment markets (and the focus of this session): Can we utilize markets to improve communication efficiency, and how elaborate must hte market be to derive benefits?

So, how about if you put $5 on the value of the sent communication. Then receivers can filter out communication requests on price.

Benefits of market:

Privacy is prserved
Important and ugent communication wil have higher payments
Receivers compensated for interruption.

Prior work has shown that markets can increase gains for senders and receivers. But, in real life, people aren’t very good at estimating things, estimating value.

So, they did a lab study. Participants come in and earn money by solving puzzles. they can ask for help from other participants. And communication (ask for help) is run on a no-price market, variable-price market, fixed-price market.

Results

Market participants earneda bout a dollar more than no-market
and the fixed-price market seemed to perform the best.
Variable price market performed worse, but also was more prone to error and higher cognitive costs (assessing a number of prices)
Variable price market had significantly higher time to make decision compared to fixed-price market

Interesting stuff.

Network Structure, Position, ties and ICT Use in Distributed Knowledge Intensive Work

Competing models/theories to explain technology use:

Technology Acceptance MOdel (TAM)
Social Influence Model
Significance of social structural, position, and ties not well-accounted in the above models

So, what social structures affect ICT use?

Weak ties! Hearing a lot about that this conference.

And now, a completely impenetrable explanation of method. Oy, I am not smart.

Long Title: Investigating the Effcect of Dicsuiion Forum Affordances on Conversational Structures

Looking at thread structure of bulliten boards. Like, explicit or implicit threads.

Question: Is the way the discussion presented have an effect on how people internalize the discussion. (?) “Determine whtether these differences affect how people ‘talk’ “

Investigate the contribution of “Time” and “Similarity”.

Basically they’re looking at “flat” (blog-like) thread structure vs. threaded thread structure and see if that has an impact on the language that arises.

What they found: People drop cueues to other text in threaded discussions, use them heavily in non-threaded discussion. SHOCKER!

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

CSCW Session – Distributed Interdisciplinary Teams

11Nov08

Coordinating High Interdependency Tasks in Asymmetric Distributed Teams

Petra Saskia Bayerl and Kristina Lauche, Delft University of Technology

Challenges of remote teams

Coordination of tasks and processes
Technology restrictions
Process and motivation losses
Conflicts and trust

Whoah, they looked at offshore oil production teams and the control people onshore.

Study aim: coordination for highly interpendent taks in distributed teams in foffshore oil and gas production. Implications for technology support.

Cutting Into COllaboration: Understanding Coordination in Distributed Medical Work

Collaboration is important: when it’s distributed it gets more difficult.

Loose collaboration structure can make coordination difficult.

Goals:

understand work practices ian coordination in research
tie practice to cscw issues sush as awareness and informal interaction

Research context:

Hospital in big city, biomedical engineering dept in small down, 240 miles separated.

Surgery dept: Define requirements, apply materials, conduct animal studies, analyze patient data
BME side: develop and design materials, developm modesl, build materials and devices.

Conflicts

Different views of time: surgeons go to OR all the time, engineers are timely and pissed off when surgeons miss meetings.
Communication: surgeons had different views of how they should be communicated to.

Research goals conflicts

Surgeons: clinical stuides, clear application, quick adoption
BMG: Innovation and new materials, patents, try several attempts.

So, successful projects sometimes, how did they overcome challenges:

Use human mediators
Opportunistic schedule adjustment (but not always aware of remote colleagues)
Optimize joint retreats and one-day trips

Implications for design

Flexible calendaring
Improved activity awareness

Future work

what makes project succeed: how much does coordination matter, how do these strategies work longer term
What does low-level coordination look like? Who and when do collaborators communicate? What do they share?

Summary

Key difficulties in coordination: perceptons of hierarchy; priorities, scheduling and work locations; research goals
Strategies to overcome: human mediators; maximizing face to face contact; opportunistic schedule adjustment and ad hoc communication

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

CSCW Session – Oh Behave: Politeness and Emotion in CSCW

11Nov08

Linguistic Mimicry and Trust in Text-Based CMC

Lauren Scissors et al, Northwestern University

In face to face settings, people establish rapport through behavior mimicry, to get people to like them.

Lack this in text. Is there linguistic mimicry?

Previous research indicates that f-to-f speech patterns, people tend to adopt partner’s speach patterns.

Also, research on trust in CMC environments. Takes longer to develop trust in CMC.

Hypthoesis: Text-chat enviormenent: high levels of linguistic mimicry associated with higher level of trust, lower mimicry associated with lower level of trust. Hmmm, I’m skeptical.

Description of method…..examined mimicry: using lexical mimicry (noun or noun phrase), Text-chat abbreviation mimicry (like “u didn’t do it”), and syntactic, emotion-related character (emoticons).

Hmm, deeply skeptical of abbreviation mimicry.

WIthin-session mimicry led to higher trust. Across-session mimicry lower trust. Hm, not sure i buy it. Many approach the microphone for some of the ol’ rip-n-tear action.

Mind your Ps and Qs: The Impact of politeness and rudeness in online communities

Moira Burke and Bob Kraut, CMU

Goals

determine impact of polite or rude language in online commnity interaction (newcomer integration, more efficient groupwork, death by monster (?))
Build machine learning tools to automatically detect polite language
Extend linguistic politeness theory to social interactions between strangers online

Method: survey to rate politeness of messages in a discussion group. Code message for presence or active of specific strategies around politeness.

Linguistic politeness theory, Brown and Levinson: 15 positive strategies to increase person’s positive social value, and 10 negative strategies to decrease. Interesting, should read that sometime.

Generally, they found that rude behavior in a politics group “helps” (that is, gets replies), where as in technical groups tend to not get responses. Well, okay. Keep in mind, that previous research points out that getting responses is what fuels future participation.

Next steps: train machine to detect language. A “Politness checker” like a grammar checker. Hm, not sure i like that. Good writing is the avoidance of cliche, not the repetition of patterns observed elsewhere.

I am waiting – Timing and responsiveness in semi-synchronous communication

Within synchronous communication, lack of responsiveness is immediately problemmatic. But what is the affect in asynchronous?

In IM, users can choose whether and when to respond to EVERY point of the conversation. And, users typically multitask n IM communications.

Objective of study: a deeper understanding of factors that affect responsiveness. They do this with a survey. Hmm. This seems kind of obvious: resposiveness is a runction of how busy i am and the perceived importance of the message. Perceived importance culd be bucketed into a few things (who sent it, subject matter, provocation, etc).

Their list:

Identify of the buddy
relationship with buddy
time since liast message
whtehr message window already existed
whether message window was in focus

Results HIghlights and Implications

Relationship category did not have a significant impact on responsiveness. Hm, that’s surprising. But there were significant differences between individuals.

Work-fragmentation is a strong indicator of faster responsiveness

More keyboard activity
More mouse activity
More app-window switches.
Hmm, that’s interesting too.

Also: Faster responsiveness if the IM window was already open. And, signifiant efrect whether the window is covered or not. Shocker!

Longer messages got faster responses
Questions got faster responses
URLs got slower responsiveness
Emoticons marginally slower responses.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

CSCW Session – Social Tagging

11Nov08

Microstructures of Social Tagging

Need to get name of presenter…University of Illinois

What are microstructures?

Relatively invariant behavioral patterns emerged from user-environment interactions.

At a functional level, cognitive processes tend to be stable across individuals.

Why do we care?

Provide explanations that cut zcross levels of activities: social levels (minutes, hours, weeks), cognitive levels (seconds, minutes), embodiment level (ms, seconds). Whoah.

Distributed congnition

Arguing that social tagging is a distributed cognitive system, where individual represntations of individual users interact with the “same” external representations of other users (tags)

Tagging is a form a knowledge exchange (your representation via a tag is interpreted by another person)

Exploratory Search

Exploratory information search characteristics

Lack of specific information goals
Info goals are defined throuh a series of search-and-comprehend activities
Claim: Mental concepts are utilized (and critical) for evaluation of info content
Okay, what does this have to do with tagging?
Claim: social tags augment the evaluation process and thus facilitate exploratory search

How do people form and use mental categories

Peeople naturally categorize concepts. Concept formation is a rational response to information reduction.

The study (“to show you i’m not just hallucinating”)

Follow 4 users across 8 weeks. Engage in exploratory info tasks. Use del.icou.us to collect information and prepare for talk. Create tags for themselves and others.

Results

Somewhat impenetrable. Upshot seems to be arguing that tags are not just “metadata” but actually directly influence knowledge structures.

Influences on tag choices on Del.icio.us

Emilee Rader, Univ. of Michigan

Missed presenter name.

Folksonomy: Potential for the emergence of collective meaning.

Why do people choose some tags over other tags.?

Social: Tag choices influenced by the system. non-social: tag choices are idiosyncratic. Which is true?

Found: Users future tag choices are heavily influenced by tag choices they have previously made. Shocker. (and the ui specifically encourages that)

Social hypothesis: users’ tag choices are influenced by tags applied by other people.

Organizing hypothesis: users’ tag choices are personal and idiosuncratic, NOT influenced by others’ tag choices.

So we set out to look for a aconection between the small scale (individual tag choices) and the large scale (aggregate patterns). Dataset: 30 pages, hundreds of thousands of tags, thousands of users.

Final hypotheses

Imitation: users imitate tags that previous users have used
Organizaing: users re-use tags they ahve previously used — Our study indicates this is most imporant (But SK says: yeah, but the UI supports this one most visibly. You’re just verifying the UI effect. Right? Am I missing something? Okay, yeah, guy comes up and ask.)
Recommended: users choose suggested tags from del.icio.us

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

del.icio.us
Twitter
- RT @MobileCrunch Ultra-cool Japanese phone you can't have. Separates into two Bluetooth-connected components. http://bit.ly/dzrQ2p 3 days ago
- Users are Humans: Comparing Smartphone UIs installment #1. http://wp.me/pkxQi-2m 4 days ago
- Flickr set of iPad UI conventions: http://is.gd/7Ibev 4 days ago
Blogroll
- Designing Agile
- SaaSmaster

Comparing Smartphone UIs: The Status Bar

The Status Bar

iPhone

Android

webOS

Blackberry

Symbian

WinMo 6.5

Last Word

Mobile Web to outpace mobile apps?

Brief Thoughts: Activity Stream Scanning Affordances

Can your brain really handle all that activity stream junk?

Social Networking Data Portability Cheat Sheet

Brief Thoughts: Usability vs. Expertise

CSCW Session – Mathletics: Markets and Modeling

CSCW Session – Distributed Interdisciplinary Teams

CSCW Session – Oh Behave: Politeness and Emotion in CSCW

CSCW Session – Social Tagging

del.icio.us

Twitter

Blogroll

Recent Entries

Categories

Archives