Feedback

Hey guys,

Mark- I can't pause the video while it is going, so I can't read anything. Its quite good, but of course a little fuzzy :P Its not supposed to be a conversation as such, but commenting, like you would comment on bebo? I'd like to hear what Jerad has to say. And where did the info come in? Or did I just not watch the video enough?

Jerad - The abstract talks a lot about our research, and not a lot about our issues and how we would like to overcome this. The first 1 1/2 pages is completely about defining the background of SNS, and although important, could definatly be refined and a lot can be edited out.

Under the heading "What is the problem", 2nd paragraph you mention "In addition, rarely do we name the nature of our relationship with other individuals, in fact, in many situations naming the nature of the relationship may insult the other party, so we exist often in an often amophous social relationship". I love this, as it is so true. However, this relates to our ideas because we are blantently showly these relationships so we can better understand where we stand with others. So I don't know if this is a positive or a negative? Do we realy want to define our realtionships through the bold use of colours? Or are we just happy to evolve our relationships, be privvy to more information as time goes on, without the bold definitions, which even though they change, might be detrimental to our connections with others. (I just mean that if the program picked up the someone is speaking down to me, do I want to know?)

In the last paragraph in that heading, I thought we might say something about privlidges being taken away if the relationship changes, so a fight would result in loss of information, as the relationship has changed.

On a side note, are there going to be fields of information? Once your circle is 'this' big (remembering that size is dependant on intimacy, and distance on frequency) you get this information about me, even if you have talked about it or not? (see diagram)

I will also do a diagram about the relationships under the TA theory, make it simple, so the different types of people that come under the heading, a simple description. What do you think?

Is the paragraph about the 'why don't you... yes, but' relavent, although it is interesting?

In general: I feel like you're not really explaining why its important that we be able to group people well; how the current issue with many SNS is that it is an all or nothing situation in terms of information. There is no current distinctions that allow people to have boundaries about their information sharing within a group of people (which may be a large mix). The development we are talking about really allows people to forge foundations before information is divulged. It builds up a trust, and information is shared at the rate that the itimacy is built, allowing you are only seeing the information on the person that is relavent to your personal realtionship with them. Will we find this information more special because it is earned and relavent, rather than a huge heap shoved at us (one and all).

We possibly should mention somehting about visualising our relationships gives us more control; eg. I can see freinds slipping away from me (literally).

Also, we need to look at how we describe what we are trying to do: how would it work - although this will be displayed in the video, I feel like we're not actually explaining what we are trying to develop at all, and only describing why we are doing it?

I also think that we need to review how our development is helping our situation, "review stage".

As I said before, the potential for change within a relationship needs to be talked about, to let them know that this is ever changing and updating. And we need to also talk about possible negatives within our design; eg. labelling.

Ok, I feel like I've written heaps, and I hope it's helpful. You're both doing awesome jobs, and now what I need from you is what you think I should be doing in terms of diagrams for the paper.