Summary
The Chat Circles Series
This paper drafts the designs and observations of multiple stages in a text based communications program. The impetus behind this software was to take the now mundane and relatively emotionless activity of texting and provide it with some semblance of the life found in face to face interaction. Various methods of user representation and graphical motion are used to emulate the experience of taking part in conversation with a group of people. There are features that express distance between two people, emotional tensions, and the interactions of being in an environment with its own independent happenings (such as news that plays in the background and potentially stimulates conversation). From a minimal set of breathing circles, the software evolves into a chatroom as vibrant with stimulus and emotion as a real gathering.
Social Translucence
This paper notes how the factors of visibility, awareness, and accountability drive certain aspects of interaction and real life. Furthermore, it explores how the absence of these factors affects virtual communication as well as what can be done to remedy this absence. These elements engage two interacting people with a set of rules that defines acceptable behavior. Without them, the gloves are off and truly genuine interaction becomes difficult. The paper provides three forms of solutions:
- Realist: Projecting social information from the physical into the digital domain.
- Mimetic: Represent social cues from the physical into the digital domain.
- Abstract: Portraying social information in ways not closely tied to their physical analog.
These solutions provide different modes of injecting virtual communication with the aforementioned factors.
Reflection
The Chat Circles Series
I’ve always been intrigued by how some developers tackle the issue of breathing life into virtual communication. Both articles share a common ideal in this regard. The various chat circle programs seem to take a cue from the points mentioned in Social Transluence in that they seeks to represent real life social cues in the digital world through the continuous movement and manipulation of circles. I must also note that, while this goal is interesting, I question whether the general population desires it or not. I am under the impression that a lot of people appreciate the difference between real life and virtual communication. Different sets of rules afford them different abilities. For example, the proposed features of Chat Circles would allow people to see whether you’re listening to the conversation or not. However, popular chat domains like Facebook Messenger or GroupMe have no such indication. Many users appreciate Facebook’s notification that the other person ‘has seen’ your message because of the fact that one can read the message that popped up without clicking on it (thus sending the notification).
Social Translucence
I can certainly recognize how it’s not just the tone and body language of a person that affects communication but the physical environment the speakers are in. Most social media websites are of a public nature. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram’s primary feature involves posting something for all of your friends to see. This wholly affects what you’re willing to say, how you say it, and does not really allow for intimate communication between two individuals without the use of a chat tool. It makes me wonder what a site would be like where a person has multiple friends and pages dedicated to each of them. Only the user and that specific friend could access and update that page, reminiscent of a private diary shared by two people. How would this affect their activities?
Questions
- Does the general population really want more intimate virtual chatting or do they have an appreciation for the emotive disconnect that comes with it?
- How efficiently can the models proposed in Chat Circles evoke certain powerful emotions? The article noted aggression or disdain but can such feelings be felt without true presence?
- How much extra effort do these modes of communication require with the addition of such features? If people do desire these features, how readily will they accept the extra effort?
