For my “how to” book on Facebook, there are few points that Orlikowski and Grudin make that would structure the book very well. The explanation on what Facebook is has to be centered on it being a social technology, but by relating it to previously known technologies for the reader. This means for example, showing how Facebook is in a way, an expansion on e-mail by allowing a centralized and more user-friendly way of interacting with friends and family. This helps shift the technological frame slowly and push the new user into a bigger frame that still encompasses the old one.
The usefulness of Facebook comes in the way one uses it. Everyone has their own different style of how much they use Facebook, and I would suggest that the new user figure out what is most comfortable for him or her. By guiding the user through different uses for each feature (walls used for conversation and just general updates, for example) while trying to keep it all within some previous experience can help the user decide. Interestingly, the way the user will use Facebook is not only dependent on his or her style, but also to what extent the user’s friends use Facebook. This is part of Grudin’s discussion on critical mass; the more people you know on Facebook, the more likely you are to use it. If the new user will have very few friends on Facebook, that person will have to decide if it is worth the investment of time and resources. It may not be worth it for that person to go online, check Facebook everyday, just to see that no one is keeping in touch with him/her.
Finally, the rewards of using Facebook is the accessibility and ease in keeping up with other people. If the user loves e-mailing friends, sharing pictures, etc. then the return is very high. The interface is relatively simple and even more people will be keeping up with whatever the user decides to put on his/her profile.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Nice job, an important thing to keep in mind is that the older users must find a high return on investment with the use of Facebook, otherwise they will be less likely to use it. Your discussion of critical mass is important in understanding why many people use Facebook more frequently than others. It would be interesting to see if a certain user's participation on Facebook would decrease over a period of time where a large number of their contacts decided to not log on Facebook.
ReplyDeleteI like the frame of email. Another thing to consider might be the use of multiple frames to guide the user through facebook. After all, Facebook has become an increasingly expansive site that can do more and more. In a way, it's becoming the wal-mart of the internet, a one stop shop. The email frame considers the idea of messaging and maybe wall writing, but what about things like friending or setting privacy restrictions. The idea of commenting on photos is totally different than email, so another frame might be better to analyze it and teach the user.
ReplyDeleteGrudin's discussion on critical mass, and your reference to it here, are similar to Metcalfe's Law: The value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n^2). This property of networks could be used to convince an individual of the value gained from joining a network, as well as the potential value in the future. Metcalf's law is also a motivating force for getting your friends to use the network also, and the typical analogy is that of Fax Machines(which old folk should be familiar with): One user and one fax machine has hardly any value, but if you get your friend a fax machine as well as yourself... WHOLA, value!
ReplyDelete