Inclusive Social Tagging

Research Lab

Educational Technologies

Inclusive Social TaggingInclusive Social TaggingA Paradigm for Tagging-Services in the A Paradigm for Tagging-Services in the Knowledge SocietyKnowledge Society

Michael Derntl, Thorsten Hampel, Renate Motschnig, Tom PitnerMichael Derntl, Thorsten Hampel, Renate Motschnig, Tom Pitner

Universities of Vienna, Paderborn, and BrnoUniversities of Vienna, Paderborn, and [email protected]@univie.ac.at

WSKS 2008 September 25, 2008 – Athens, Greece

WSKS 2008 3September 25, 2008

Research Lab Educational Technologies

OverviewOverview

• Semantic data organization and tagging

• Inclusive Universal Access and social tagging Inclusive Social Tagging

• Analysis of current Web 2.0 services



TaggingTagging



TaggingTagging

tagtagObjectObject

Bringing order to things – organize, search, find



Social tagging, folksonomySocial tagging, folksonomy

… … … “tag cloud”



Data organizationData organization

metadatainitiatives

coordinatedmetadatarepositories& registries

domain ontology

taxonomy

thesaurus

conceptualmeta-model

logic theory fordomain semantics

social tagging categories stereotypes formal metadata, standardsiniti

al

fully

de

velo

pe

d

informal formal

weak s

eman

tics

stron

g se

man

tics

de

velo

pm

en

t

structured



Universal accessibilityUniversal accessibility

A product or service is universally accessible, if it can be used by persons regardless of their capabilities, skills, and characteristics.

high quality of interaction; availability to anywhere, anytime; Life cycle -- requirements, analysis, design (recent)

Inclusive Universal Access extension with non technology aspectsInclusion: all people on all levels (intellectual, social, personal…); user

involvement in all product/service lifecycle phases

Adaptability: usage scenarios flexible to adapt to user requirements, behavior, …

Usability: use case focused, smooth experience; guidelines compliance (eg WCAG), privacy, security, reliability



Metadata vs. social taggingMetadata vs. social tagging

Inclusiveness:

Inclusiveness of creation Inclusiveness of usage

Metadata • Restricted to a closed circle of persons, committees, and organizations

• All potential users• Typical: strict guidelines and rules,• Assumptions about the domain• Effort required by first-time users.

Social tagging

• Important use case for all users• No restrictions on tag number / meaning• Decentral cooperation and coordination

• All potential users (usually registration required)

Not inclusive Entry barriers

InclusiveInclusive




Adaptability:

Adaptability of creation Adaptability of usage

Metadata • Can be adapted to changing requirements• Effort may be significant (bureaucratic

control mechanisms)• Might break existing applications

• Constrained by rules and guidelines• Requires research on extension

mechanisms

Social tagging

• Core element of social tagging• No restricted dictionary• Extension and adaptation are “natural” use

cases

• Easy adding, editing, retrieval, querying• Sometimes restricted to creator

Provider effort User effort

AdaptableAdaptable




Usability:

Usability of creation Usability of usage

Metadata • Assumptions, rules and restrictions in the underlying domain model

• Depends heavily on quality of tools and documentation provided.

Social tagging

• Enabled through provided software service

• Conceptually simple task, however dependent on software quality

• Most important use case particular caution for usability in tagging services

• Mostly implemented as Web 2.0 services resembling desktop experience

Depends on tools Depends on tools

Depends on tools High usability



Depends on tools

Principles of ISTPrinciples of IST

Not inclusive

Entry barriersProvider effort

User effort

Depends on tools

Inclusive

Adaptable

High usability

Decentral responsibility,Decentral responsibility,

Active participation,Active participation,

Interpersonal exchange,Interpersonal exchange,

Person centeredness,Person centeredness,

Universal accessibilityUniversal accessibility



Analysis of Web 2.0 ServicesAnalysis of Web 2.0 Services

• Inclusion: client devices– Desktop PC– PDA Glofiish X800 w/ Opera Mini– Mobile SonyEricsson K700i w/ Java, Opera Mini

Desktop PDA Mobile

Adobe Share Flash req’d no

Backpack OK read only

Blogger OK OK, display problems

Flickr OK read only

GMail + GTalk OK no

Google Docs OK OK, simple UI

MySpace OK OK, some display problems

SlideShare OK display & fct problems OK

Wikidot.com OK read only




• Adaptability: adapting to user requirements, extensibility, integration-ready

Official API GUI integration GUI automation

Adobe Share REST forbidden unspecified

Backpack XML w/ permission unspecified

Blogger GData forbidden unspecified

Flickr REST, XML RPC, SOAP w/ permission ok

GMail/GTalk POP/SMTP/IMAP, XMPP forbidden forbidden

Google Docs GData w/ permission forbidden

MySpace -- w/ permission forbidden

SlideShare REST forbidden human-like only

Wikidot.com -- limited forbidden




• Usability: easy-to-use, intuitive; also: security, privacy, reliability

Concepts Private / public / shared Security

Adobe Share -- private, shared --

Backpack tag shared within group SSL

Blogger label, rating, stars all SSL

Flickr tag, note all --

GMail/GTalk label, star private SSL

Google Docs folder, star all SSL

MySpace tag, category, rating private, public --

SlideShare tag, topic, annotation all --

Wikidot.com tag, category all --



ConclusionsConclusions

Tagging: – organizing things on the Web– more inclusiveness, adaptability, and usability than metadata– broad take-up

Inclusive Social Tagging– main factors: inclusion, adaptability, usability– understanding socio-technical dimensions– currently underdeveloped in popular services– guidance for further improvement

Inclusive Social Tagging

Technology

Transcript of Inclusive Social Tagging