by Don Park
at 2004/02/01 21:40:22
One of the common weaknesses of existing social network services is the lack of easy flexible ways to differentiate types or depth of friendship. Orkut, for example, allows one to group friends but also requires one to name each group. While this requirement seems trivial and makes sense logically, it deters users from using the feature in practice.
Friendship Circle is a way to express types and depths of friendship with minimal effort. A Friendship Circle is basically a nested rings of people (represented by icons with miniture photo and name) around a person. To use the Friendship Circle, the user drag and drops icons from a palette of friends to the circle. Note that this can be done using DHTML+CSS.
Distance away from the center represent depth of friendship. So the innermost ring is populated by family members, relatives, and best friends. The outermost ring is populated by people whom you don't really care about (i.e. connection-addicts).
Angle of placement on a ring is used to express types of friendship. To help the user, the rings are divided into four lightly colored quadrants: red, blue, green, and yellow. Red and blue quadrants will most likely be used to hold people with personal and business relationships.
Update:
I drew up a mockup of Friendship Circle for those having trouble visualizing from my description.
Comments
So who has circles? Or did you invent them?
It would be easy to make labels out of this as well. Make tight colored dots (with light outer rings) for people in the center, and then rings of various sizes (and thicknesses) for outer levels.
I was thinking of this, cause it would be really cool to see that applied to lists, like blogrolls. Thus Daily Habit would have a tight green dot (technical), Joi would get a tight yellow dot (general/other), James Seng would get a small ring, but interwingly would get a large thin yellow circle.
Course, maybe that much honesty would cause more problems than its worth.
I was thinking of this, cause it would be really cool to see that applied to lists, like blogrolls. Thus Daily Habit would have a tight green dot (technical), Joi would get a tight yellow dot (general/other), James Seng would get a small ring, but interwingly would get a large thin yellow circle.
Course, maybe that much honesty would cause more problems than its worth.
Yes, I invented it. Sometimes it's easier to invent a solution then to search for one. I am too lazy to try all the social network services out there and see if any of them have a working solution.
I wasn't thinking of using it in blogrolls because it's too personal. It wouldn't be pleasant for someone who thought he was a good friend of someone only to find out he is a 'fringe'.
Friendship Circle is more of a personal connection organizer than sharable map of connections. It's also psychologically comforting to visually differentiate (at least to oneself) close friends from casual connections.
I wasn't thinking of using it in blogrolls because it's too personal. It wouldn't be pleasant for someone who thought he was a good friend of someone only to find out he is a 'fringe'.
Friendship Circle is more of a personal connection organizer than sharable map of connections. It's also psychologically comforting to visually differentiate (at least to oneself) close friends from casual connections.
If you expose these frienship circles to your friends, you will run into problems: some friends will get jealous that they are in the outer circle, while some other friends are in the inner circle. And you would not want to offend them.
In the real life, although we do classify our friends, we do not openly exhibit this classification to them, in order to be tactful.
Of course you can just refuse a friend's request to joing your network, (e.g. by not acting upon it), but even that may offend.
How'd you go about this?
In the real life, although we do classify our friends, we do not openly exhibit this classification to them, in order to be tactful.
Of course you can just refuse a friend's request to joing your network, (e.g. by not acting upon it), but even that may offend.
How'd you go about this?
I agree that information like friendship circles MUST NOT be shared with others. Likewise, privilege differences derived from positions on friendship circle SHOULD NOT be obvious.
As to how, well, social software is difficult to design. As for me, I have accepted invitations from strangers only if they were also accepted by fairly close or well-regarded friends of mine.
As to how, well, social software is difficult to design. As for me, I have accepted invitations from strangers only if they were also accepted by fairly close or well-regarded friends of mine.
If you've not seen it yet ... http://www.airbag.ca/introvertster
Sort of the anti-friendship approach ;-)
Sort of the anti-friendship approach ;-)
Don, this post
1) either proves that on the internet is becoming faster in producing great ideas, at least faster than I can grasp them (sometimes).
2) spawned in return another thread of tought... and I came up with this: http://pmx.sourceforge.net/linkrings-001.jpg
I didn't like the carousel-like nature of your links, it does not really stress that you are part of a community enough... I prefer this version ;), where a community is symbolized a ring, and you can be part of it or not...
(BTW, the "Red Star inside a Circle" is a "You" icon, the star rephresents another user and the circle is simply a "duplication of a person" in the case you can't fit that one in more than one/two circles at a time... there are still some errors in this scheme as the "enemy" circle should be linked to the University Staff via Mr Phillins, and the "Foaf" group should be directly attached to the generic "Mr. Don Park" as well...).
Hopefully tomorrow I'll post updates on this on my blog. See you.
1) either proves that on the internet is becoming faster in producing great ideas, at least faster than I can grasp them (sometimes).
2) spawned in return another thread of tought... and I came up with this: http://pmx.sourceforge.net/linkrings-001.jpg
I didn't like the carousel-like nature of your links, it does not really stress that you are part of a community enough... I prefer this version ;), where a community is symbolized a ring, and you can be part of it or not...
(BTW, the "Red Star inside a Circle" is a "You" icon, the star rephresents another user and the circle is simply a "duplication of a person" in the case you can't fit that one in more than one/two circles at a time... there are still some errors in this scheme as the "enemy" circle should be linked to the University Staff via Mr Phillins, and the "Foaf" group should be directly attached to the generic "Mr. Don Park" as well...).
Hopefully tomorrow I'll post updates on this on my blog. See you.
Phil wrote:
If you've not seen it yet ... http://www.airbag.ca/introvertster
++++
I really lacked the Packet Flood thingie... usually when I am online on IRC/ICQ/AIM I never talk, so point one and three are already enforced ;D
If you've not seen it yet ... http://www.airbag.ca/introvertster
++++
I really lacked the Packet Flood thingie... usually when I am online on IRC/ICQ/AIM I never talk, so point one and three are already enforced ;D
Interesting labels you have on your diagram. I especially like "Fellow Cult Members" - sometimes I think of blogging as a cult activity :-)
Just remembered I had a post about this a good few months ago, about mapping myself; http://shelter.nu/blog-035.html with this image as a result; http://shelter.nu/me.gif. Not social networks per se, but more of a "interest scorecard" where friends and enemies easily can be entered. After you've got this, basic graph theory functions can be used to calculate your social values. :)
Hmm. I like the idea of building a topic-map around a person, an interest-map of sort.
I dislike using graphs in UIs though because it must be traversed in order to make sense of it where a 'game board' like visual presentation can be more easily grasped.
I dislike using graphs in UIs though because it must be traversed in order to make sense of it where a 'game board' like visual presentation can be more easily grasped.
Don,
Does one spend time with this graph every morning, and move one friend-counter closer, after he has been helpful in a difficult situation, and move one of the mistress-counters further away because she used a unappealing perfume?
What is the benefit to anyone of making these shifting nuances explicit? Or is this satire?
- Adina
Does one spend time with this graph every morning, and move one friend-counter closer, after he has been helpful in a difficult situation, and move one of the mistress-counters further away because she used a unappealing perfume?
What is the benefit to anyone of making these shifting nuances explicit? Or is this satire?
- Adina
Adina, it is not satire at all. One can fiddle with diagram every morning, every hour, or every other year. Its benefits are rather subtle and arguable. First, it gives you peace of mind in that people you value more are not in the same pile as people you care less about. Such emotional effects should not be trivialized because it impacts user experience. Second, it allows one to more easily find people close to you. Third and most importantly, different privileages can be associated with proximity and sector they are placed in.
hmm... I like the idea of mapping an intimacy gradient that gives some people access to a personal journal, others access to confidential business information, and others access to public writings. But the two-dimensional graph form feels very different to the multi-dimensional way that I experience knowing different people. I often feel that meeting new people, or knowing people better, creates new dimensions in my understanding.
So, if one were to diagram, one would want a form where one could add new dimensions.
So, if one were to diagram, one would want a form where one could add new dimensions.
Adina, I feel exactly the same way but not everyone has the ability to visualize multiple-dimension models in their head or even comprehend 2d or 3d representations of those models. In some sense, UI is an art of compromises.
I imagine keeping a list of people with a little note about things they gave me, or did for me, or that I liked; plus a list of my actions or thoughts in relationship to them.
I personally might use such a list to remind myself of nice people whom I might try to do more favors for, etc. Perhaps I might note someone who seemed to be taking advantage of me.
With such a list, one could turn that into a visual map, or other visual interface, that reflected more of the "status" suggested by your circles.
That status might be handy if, for example, you were tracking 150 people you knew and wanted to, say, send as many of them as possible a cute picture of your cat. You might select people with a particular status (like, "people whom I like especially when they regularly send me cool pictures, who sent me something this month").
What I think is really interesting is on the order of creating a better user interface to one's address book.
Like, a simple practical example: some of my relatives are also my close friends. I need an interface where I see them as both family and friends. I think social software that achieved even this level of nuance would be impressive at this point!
I think any interface like this would ideally allow both an unlimited number of dimensions of categorization (facets), and also it would allow people to collaborate on categortization (think shared address book). I have my friends, my spouse has her friends, we have friends together that overlap our personal lists, etc.
I personally might use such a list to remind myself of nice people whom I might try to do more favors for, etc. Perhaps I might note someone who seemed to be taking advantage of me.
With such a list, one could turn that into a visual map, or other visual interface, that reflected more of the "status" suggested by your circles.
That status might be handy if, for example, you were tracking 150 people you knew and wanted to, say, send as many of them as possible a cute picture of your cat. You might select people with a particular status (like, "people whom I like especially when they regularly send me cool pictures, who sent me something this month").
What I think is really interesting is on the order of creating a better user interface to one's address book.
Like, a simple practical example: some of my relatives are also my close friends. I need an interface where I see them as both family and friends. I think social software that achieved even this level of nuance would be impressive at this point!
I think any interface like this would ideally allow both an unlimited number of dimensions of categorization (facets), and also it would allow people to collaborate on categortization (think shared address book). I have my friends, my spouse has her friends, we have friends together that overlap our personal lists, etc.
Don and Adina, just a note about dimensions and Don's diagram: Don's circle already graphs four dimensions.
Each time you slice the circle, you add two dimensions within which you are measuring, in this case, someone's status.
So, it is a two dimensional image, but as a graph, you already are indicating more than three dimensions. And, adding more dimensions is as simple as adding more slices to the circle.
To add faceted dimensions, one could basically create overlays of the circle, for example, with each overlay having a number of dimensions exclusive of other circles.
I would want to put friends, family, and bloggers on different circles, because, for example, my cousin Lisa is also one of my close friends, and she is also the blogger, Ask Lutz ( http://bizstone.com/lisa ).
In Don's diagram, I would want to place her somewhere in three of the four dimensions, or I would be forced to pick the "best one", which constraint (as website browse navigation generally demonstrates) has both pluses and minuses.
Besides faceted classification, one could also use multiple classification schemes simultaneously (visualization will be left as an exercise for the reader ;-). I mention this because, I think, practically, our minds will jump all the boundaries created by any of these schemes anyway.
Each time you slice the circle, you add two dimensions within which you are measuring, in this case, someone's status.
So, it is a two dimensional image, but as a graph, you already are indicating more than three dimensions. And, adding more dimensions is as simple as adding more slices to the circle.
To add faceted dimensions, one could basically create overlays of the circle, for example, with each overlay having a number of dimensions exclusive of other circles.
I would want to put friends, family, and bloggers on different circles, because, for example, my cousin Lisa is also one of my close friends, and she is also the blogger, Ask Lutz ( http://bizstone.com/lisa ).
In Don's diagram, I would want to place her somewhere in three of the four dimensions, or I would be forced to pick the "best one", which constraint (as website browse navigation generally demonstrates) has both pluses and minuses.
Besides faceted classification, one could also use multiple classification schemes simultaneously (visualization will be left as an exercise for the reader ;-). I mention this because, I think, practically, our minds will jump all the boundaries created by any of these schemes anyway.
Jay wrote:
Besides faceted classification, one could also use multiple classification schemes simultaneously (visualization will be left as an exercise for the reader ;-). I mention this because, I think, practically, our minds will jump all the boundaries created by any of these schemes anyway.
+ + + +
What I fear of this is not visualization :), but rather the way you will create a common standard to let many different friend-links cathegorization schemes to interact. For example, Don's scheme does not represent "enemies", mine does, Don's scheme does not allow you to do multiple cathergorization, while, as you wrote, you would like to...
Also, does Don putting his wife and his mistress in the same area mean that Don's mistress will be able to achieve Don's wife e-mail and begin spamming her? O:)
In the end I can see the usefulness of Don's scheme, as it ONLY writes the relationship between Don and the people he links to (so, Don is right to say that it's easy to use), but I as first one would study carefully the way how to link this to other systems... if other cathegorization systems add more complexity, they risk to draw more than simple relationship between $CURRENT_USER and the other people...
Besides faceted classification, one could also use multiple classification schemes simultaneously (visualization will be left as an exercise for the reader ;-). I mention this because, I think, practically, our minds will jump all the boundaries created by any of these schemes anyway.
+ + + +
What I fear of this is not visualization :), but rather the way you will create a common standard to let many different friend-links cathegorization schemes to interact. For example, Don's scheme does not represent "enemies", mine does, Don's scheme does not allow you to do multiple cathergorization, while, as you wrote, you would like to...
Also, does Don putting his wife and his mistress in the same area mean that Don's mistress will be able to achieve Don's wife e-mail and begin spamming her? O:)
In the end I can see the usefulness of Don's scheme, as it ONLY writes the relationship between Don and the people he links to (so, Don is right to say that it's easy to use), but I as first one would study carefully the way how to link this to other systems... if other cathegorization systems add more complexity, they risk to draw more than simple relationship between $CURRENT_USER and the other people...
Davide, I think you make good points. In fact, I think what you are saying reflects what is actually happening with corporate CRM systems, where information about people categorized under different schemes is being "linked" together.
A CRM system could easily "assume" that a wife and a mistress are the same person, or that they have a relationship with each other, etc.
What happens when CRM systems start to connect to people's blogs, for example, could make things worse. SpamBooks assumes everyone on my blogroll is my friend, grabs a list of books from my linked Amazon wishlist, and emails all my "friends" suggesting that they buy certain titles for me for my birthday.
No matter what (CRM or not), some people will be looking for ways to exploit the implicit or explicit meaning in links between people, whether between themselves and others, or between third parties.
The issue I see is that these social (and CRM) systems to-date tend to be designed around centralized control--and, in particular bureaucratic control rather than personal. This control prevents the system itself and the people who use it (or are used by it) from adapting humanely in relationship to it. Instead, the system becomes more of a prison ecology where people on the edge capture status by messing with the rules and people in the center preserve status by enforcing rules more strictly.
I think it is a good question whether social / personal relationship tools can help you not turn yourself into your own centralized bureaucracy in relationship to others (or a captive in others' tools)!
I think, in particular, finding out how to preserve human (decentralized, end-to-end, personal) conversation / collaboration in this context is what is worth exploring.
A CRM system could easily "assume" that a wife and a mistress are the same person, or that they have a relationship with each other, etc.
What happens when CRM systems start to connect to people's blogs, for example, could make things worse. SpamBooks assumes everyone on my blogroll is my friend, grabs a list of books from my linked Amazon wishlist, and emails all my "friends" suggesting that they buy certain titles for me for my birthday.
No matter what (CRM or not), some people will be looking for ways to exploit the implicit or explicit meaning in links between people, whether between themselves and others, or between third parties.
The issue I see is that these social (and CRM) systems to-date tend to be designed around centralized control--and, in particular bureaucratic control rather than personal. This control prevents the system itself and the people who use it (or are used by it) from adapting humanely in relationship to it. Instead, the system becomes more of a prison ecology where people on the edge capture status by messing with the rules and people in the center preserve status by enforcing rules more strictly.
I think it is a good question whether social / personal relationship tools can help you not turn yourself into your own centralized bureaucracy in relationship to others (or a captive in others' tools)!
I think, in particular, finding out how to preserve human (decentralized, end-to-end, personal) conversation / collaboration in this context is what is worth exploring.
Are there technical constraints in this idea for the concept that your family might not want to know about your mistress? (Though I suppose if you don't want them to know about her, don't put it on the Internet (duh), this is really a whole class of who-knows-about-who that I find interesting and problematic.)
Don, your model for categorizing assocations in a social network is a really interesting one. I was so impressed that I sent you a request to make a connection on Orkut. heh!
I agree that there are some limitations, but Orkut is the most intuitive of the social networking tools that I've encountered. I could see Orkut evolving into the type of system that you're envisioning, at least to a degree.
I agree that there are some limitations, but Orkut is the most intuitive of the social networking tools that I've encountered. I could see Orkut evolving into the type of system that you're envisioning, at least to a degree.
Given that Friendship Circle exposed problems as well as solving some of them, I think more work in this area of UI is needed by both researchers and engineers.
BTW, I should make it clear that I don't have a mistress...at this time. ;-p
BTW, I should make it clear that I don't have a mistress...at this time. ;-p
Hey Don,
Try as I might - I can;t drag anything onto the circle! I tried starting with your blogroll to the right, dragging my my Outlook and Orkut/Tribe/Ryze/Ecademy account - I even tried pasting from eth clipboard.
What gives?
And does it output FOAF?
Try as I might - I can;t drag anything onto the circle! I tried starting with your blogroll to the right, dragging my my Outlook and Orkut/Tribe/Ryze/Ecademy account - I even tried pasting from eth clipboard.
What gives?
And does it output FOAF?
Marc, just in case you are not kidding, it's just a mockup picture, not a working prototype.
Comment has been disabled for this post.
Copyright © 2006 Don Park
