Supporting Social Presence through Lightweight Photo

Sharing On and Off the Desktop

By Scott Counts, Microsoft Research, and Eric Fellheimer, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology

Presented by Tim Burke

The Paper

• Background• Introducing Flipper• Experimental Field Study• Results• Criticisms• Conclusions

Background

• Published at ACM SIGCHI in 2004• Pre-iPhone, pre-Android• Most popular phones in 2004:

– Nokia 2600 series (135M sold)• No camera

– Motorola RAZR V3 (130M sold)• Camera phone• Cost > $200 at launch in US

Background

• Snapshot: Versions of Life by Chalfen, Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1987.

• Requirements for Photoware by Frohlick, et al., Proc. of CSCW 2002.

• Pix Pals by Kiser, Interactions, ACM Press 1999.• Joking, storytelling, artsharing, expressing affection:

A field trial of how children and their social network communicate with digital images in leisure time by Makela, et al., Proc. CHI 2000, CHI Letters.

Introducing Flipper

• Simple application with a minimal feature set• Group-centric Photo Sharing System• Image Annotation• Data Persistence (early “cloud” application)• Desktop/Mobile integration• (Near) Automated Sharing

Introducing Flipper

• Mobile Application– Early Smartphone platform– Windows Mobile 2003– Annotation Input– Automated Sharing by

syncing a specific camerafolder on device

Introducing Flipper

• Desktop Application– Annotation Input– Drag and Drop image sharing

to contact list

Introducing Flipper

• Common Back-end– Used by both desktop and mobile versions– Web-based Active Server Page (ASP) Middleware– SQL Database– XML Data Markup– Multithreaded Application

• Attention is paid to backing service responsiveness as a component of the overall User Experience

Experimental Field Study

• Users placed into groups of four– Close friends– Family– Coworkers

• Aged 19 to 51• Had access to digital camera

Experimental Field Study

• Multi-week Trials– One week using user’s traditional sharing methods

(such as email)– One week using Flipper application on desktop

and/or mobile

Hypothesis

• Predictions:– More sharing of photos using Flipper as compared

to Multimedia Messaging (MMS) and email– Users feel enhanced subjective connectedness

with their social graph– Users find photo sharing easier using the

application

Results

• Sharing Increased using Flipper

Results

• Sharing Greater via Mobile– Avg. Mobile user shared 11.64 photos– Avg. Desktop user shared 3.2 photos

• Annotation / Commenting– Vast majority of commenting entered via desktop– Avg. Mobile user commented on 1.24 photos– Avg. Desktop user commented on 2.69 photos

Results

• Deleted Photos– 22% of photos added via desktop app deleted– 0% of photos added via mobile app deleted

• Social Graph– Users reported feeling greater connection with

their social graph when using Flipper• Ease

– Users reported improved ease of sharing photos when using Flipper

Criticisms

• Small Sample– Data are analyzed by group, not individual– Reduces statistical significance of results by

reducing sample population size– Group vs. Individual comparison may have

provided additional insight

Conclusions

• All Hypotheses Confirmed– Increased Sharing– Greater Social Connectedness– Easier Photo Sharing

Questions?

Mobile HCIGermaine Irwin

February 13, 2013

Paper Information Mobile connections: an exploration of the

place of mobile phones in friendship relations

Eileen Green & Carrie Singleton Teeside University

The Sociological Review: 2009

Background Empirical study within social theory Micro-social world Reconfigured friendships Project of self, individualism Gendered facilitation

Methodology Pilot study 4 months 47 participants Age range: 14-25 29 females 18 males

Findings Gendered roles:

Masculine cultures of connectivity Female friendship spaces

‘Appropriate’ connections Mobile mums

Conclusions Modes of friendship Relationship building Connections

Mobile Social Software for Developing Regions ByBeth E. Kolko Emma J. Rose Erica Johnson

Linah AlgadhiIS 698 Mobile HCIDr.Saun Kane

Research Team

Prof Beth Kolko• Faculty member in the

Department of Technical communications at the UW

• Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University

Introduction

Central Asia Information and Communications Technology (CAICT)

Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Uzbekistan

Why?

• Multi ethnic & Multi lingual Typical emerging market environment

• Slow diffusion pasterns for ICTsProductive research site

Methodology • Surveys• Interviews• Ethnographic observation• Public Internet Access Sites

Internet Versus Mobile

Patterns of Online activity

Trust in institutions/ family and friens

Cultural Meaning and Uses of Mobile

• People depend on SMS and phone calls wand carefully measures the costs.

• Use SMS rather than the WAP due to the high cost.

• Mobiles had a strong impact during the kyrgyz revolution on 2005.

Technology and Everyday Life

• Internet access through public sites some times not licensed.

• Very slow dialup connections and some times with no internet!

Internet Access outside the Home

Problems associated with public internet access

• The need to visit the internet cafe• The lack of:

• Privacy – trust - Technology & speed• Gender issue • High prices Made face to face network the best way to

communicate → Mobile phones

• Communication between people is another term of Information seeking.

• Usually between the family members and friends as Trusted sources not as a habit.

• SMS texting is the best information exchange method within a social network.

• Its obvious that the WAP services were applied to the area but people went back to the SMS for communication.

• MoSoSo was the best app that can provide the community with the social connection they need.