Nowadays, everybody seems talking about the importance of “sociability” in design. I have no doubt with the importance of “sociability.” However, I feel like people talk only about positive aspects of “sociability.” In fact, when I read the following paragraph from today’s reading. I felt so shameful that I thought that “sociability” might be an option in design.
“To designing for usability, utility, satisfaction, and communicative qualities, we should add a fifth imperative: designing for sociability. When IT systems fail to support the social aspect of work and leisure, when they dehumanize and de-civilize our relationship with each other, they impoverish the rich social web in which we live and operate, essential for both well-being and efficiency.”
Is it true that “sociability” should be a fifth imperative? Is “sociability” always a good thing? What is the relationship between “privacy” and “sociability”? Is “privacy” a subset of “sociability” in a bigger picture? or Are “privacy” and “sociability” against with each other?
Actually, the above doubtful questions came from my interest in the design of ebooks. I have been interested in “the design of (mobile) ebook (devices)” and “reading activities” – if I am lucky enough, I want to pursue this research interest at least until I finish my dissertation.
Are “ebooks” and “reading activities” related to “sociability”? Should “sociability” be a fifth imperative in the design of ebooks? People might say “yes! why not?” (especially, from a social constructivism perspective, I guess). However, from my own experience, social interaction with friends was sometimes less helpful than my own interaction with texts (sudden comprehension after reading over and over). Do I still need to concern about “sociability” in the design of ebooks? Shouldn’t “sociability” be an option? Doesn’t it depend on readers’ learning styles, for example?
My final question! So, what criteria (or factors) do I need to take into account in judging if “sociability” should be a fifth imperative (if “sociability” should be an option)?
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 7, 2008 at 9:45 pm
vincentdiaz
This one sounds like a big “it depends” to me. I’d probably start with the thought that if your designing an interaction that includes more than one person at the same time, sociability should be an imperative. But as I give it thought, I think a formal definition of sociability should be our starting point for this discussion, and that seems to be missing from the text.
September 7, 2008 at 10:42 pm
hskoh
Yes, I agree with you. We need to understand the author’s definition(s) of “sociability” (or a formal definition of “sociability” if any) first.
In fact, I was not sure that “sociability” should be an imperative just because a technology is for multiple people. Some educators might believe that students learn something through their own intensive self-regulation or self-concentration. Such educators might think that “sociability” feature in ebooks hinder students’ learning. Other educators believe that students learn something through group activities. Such educators think that “sociability” feasure in ebooks should be an imperative.
As a designer of ebook, do I need to include “sociability” feature in ebooks?
September 8, 2008 at 2:10 am
susancolemanmorse
I think Smith states pretty clearly his meaning of the word sociability with the reference noted previously “…dehumanize and de-civilize our relationship with each other…” I think what is laking are examples for clarification of the intent?
Would Smith say that emailing or texting dehumanizes our connection because we “chat” but don’t take the time to look one another in the eye and talk or (perhaps more importantly) listen? Or would he say that such tools bring us closer together, regardless of distance or other barriers?
As for ebooks, perhaps one questions is does a sociability component eliminate the desire to join a book club and converse in person over coffee and cake or does it provide an connection to those who might not have other opportunities to interact?
As with many applications in society, I’d argue probably both.
September 9, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Lindsay
Sociability is indeed an interesting aspect of mediated interaction. Certainly we can think of a number of different ways technology enable social interactions: Facebook, mobile phones, email, etc. The question of whether sociability should be included in designing services like eBooks or any other service probably comes down to the “First Principles” that Jeff eluded to last week. While, to me, the first reason people would pay for an eBook would be that they want to read the book, introducing a system of recommendations, eBook clubs, etc. doesn’t seem too far away. I think this is especially true when trying to secure a loyal customer base.
I’m quite interested in looking at the nature of specific mediated social interactions. I think by looking at forums and other computer subcultures we can better see how a certain type of social interaction happens. By looking to these groups, we can also identify significant cultural artifacts that are inherent to these interactions and the culture of mediated social groups. I’m particularly interested in hackers and hacker culture. I think looking at this group is beneficial because, first, they have been around for quite some time. Second, the members of this group are usually very handy with technology. The fact that the members of this particular subculture are tech-savvy allows us to see what interactions look like when technophobia on the user’s part is neutralized. Perhaps this is one way we can then see the social interaction for what it is. Ultimately, I think it would be cool to compare the social interactions that take place using varying technologies, and in different cultural context to see how technology impacts the nature of social interaction and how culture, as a result, is developed.