Notes: Lin, et al. (2007). An empirical study of web-based knowledge community success

Lin, Hui., Fan, W., & Wallace, L. (2007). [An empirical study of web-based knowledge community success]( Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. pp 1530-1605.

on web-based knowledge communities:

>A Web-based knowledge community can be viewed as a website, a web-based information system, and a community. It is a new form of communication whereby community users share knowledge for mutual learning or problem solving and conduct social interactions. As a website, system quality is important to ensure user satisfaction and participation. As a Web-based information system, information quality is a key component as the purpose of a WKC is knowledge acquisition and exchange. Without high quality information, users are less likely to feel satisfied with the community and to continue using it. Information quality and system quality together form usability factors as in Preece’s community success framework.

on satisfaction, community belonging, and contribution:

>As users become satisfied with a community, they are more likely to feel a sense of belonging to the community and identify with other users in the community. This will enhance their participation and communication with other users which in turn increases their usage.

on encouraging sharing (pro-sharing norms):

>One way to encourage knowledge sharing is by forming groups of users with similar interests. This will promote more collaboration among users. Another way to promote knowledge sharing is by offering incentives. Incentives such as bonus points and recognition for frequent contributors can encourage knowledgeable users to share their expertise with novice users. Rewards and recognition can boost user participation which subsequently enhances the pro-sharing norms in the community.

Notes: Juristo et al. (2007). Analysing the impact of usability on software design

Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M. & Sanchez-Segura, M. (2007). [Analysing the impact of usability on software design]( The Journal of Systems and Software. 80. 1506-1516.

some basic stuff for the background section on wtf do I care about design/usability in the context of community interaction.

on interface usability and functionality:

>As a result of this analysis we are able to demonstrate that usability really is not confined to the system interface and can affect the system’s core functionality.

on usability (interaction >> interface):

>Usability deals with the whole user–system interaction, not just the user interface. The user interface is the visible part of the system (buttons, pull-down menus, check-boxes, background colour, etc.). Interaction is a wider concept. Interaction is the coordination of information exchange between the user and the system.

Notes: Harper et al. (2007). Social comparisons to motivate contributions to an online community

Harper, F.M., Xin Li, S., Chen, Y. & Konstan, J.A. (2007). [Social comparisons to motivate contributions to an online community]( Persuasive Technology. pp. 148-159.

on designing software to encourage contribution:

>…designers of Web sites can hope to affect the volume of user contributions through design. They might take action to change the costs of the contribution by making contributions easier to make.

on providing comparisons of levels of contribution, compared to peers:

>Online communities wishing to promote contributions of a certain kind may wish to display information that leads members to evaluate their level of contribution. While many Web sites display information about superstar users (such as with Amazon’s “Top Reviewers” list), it is also possible to compare users with their peers in the system. In this way, users may be motivated by the presence of more attainable goals.

*how would the “members” page on a WP class blog site fit with this model of peer comparison? is there something similar in Bb?*

Notes: Butler et al. (1999). Connecting the design of software to the design of work

Butler, K.A., Esposito, C. & Hebron, R. (1999). [Connecting the design of software to the design of work]( Communications of the ACM. 42(1). pp. 38-46

this is an article on work design, but makes sense if “work” is defined as educational interactions and discourse. much of the article is spent discussing such fascinating topics as UML and OO programming. Ignore that, and think about the meaning of work design, and implications of explicit and implicit designs.

on designing work processes in software:

>When we design interactive software we are also defining much about the work
of its users. The software embodies a model of work processes for its end users because part of its job is to manage the content, format, and sequencing of the information that users need to do their work. The effect is that any application will preferentially enable certain work processes, and users will have to work harder to follow any others.

on trying to avoid responsibility for designing work processes:

>Developers may try to avoid the responsibility for promoting a particular work model by oversupplying information or features for flexibility. But this strategy is futile. It simply loads the user with an additional process, one for dealing with the resulting clutter.

*even if Bb and WP don’t have explicit work processes defined as part of their software design, there are implicit processes exposed by their design decisions. Either those processes are enabling (making it easier for people to do what they need to do with the software), or impeding (causing people to spend time/energy to understand and adapt the software to meet their needs).*