Online communities – Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability

By M. Cupic. 2003

1,316 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Computer Science Applications

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6cdb41c5e9336cd840ae1eaaa4a11be3ac1195f5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Computer Science Applications

Citations in the corpus

Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns (2005, background): “that involves addressing both usability and sociability challenges (Barab, MaKinster, Moore, Cunningham, & the ILF Design Team, 2001; Preece, 2000).”
Community Engineering for Innovations: The Ideas Competition as a Method to Nurture a Virtual Community for Innovations (2009, background): “Figure 2 identifies the different stakeholders and the qualification concept of the UCC User Group.”
Self-Governance Through Group Discussion in Wikipedia (2011, background): “…have looked at the problems of online community governance, including the need to address major policy issues, such as who may join, privacy, and anonymity (Preece, 2000), and the principles by which an online community might effectively govern itself (Kollock & Smith, 1996; Ostrom, 2000).”
Building classroom community at a distance: A case study (2001, background): ““When there is trust among people, relationships flourish; without it, they wither” (Preece, 2000, p. 191).”
Handbook Of Design Research Methods In Education: Innovations In Science, Technology, Engineering, And Mathematics Learning And Teaching (2018, background): “c h1 6 began to concentrate on issues of sociability, meaning those social policies and technical structures that support the community’s shared purpose and the social interactions among group members (Barab et al., 2001b; Preece, 2000).”
e-Learning and Social Networking Handbook: Resources for Higher Education (2008, background): “A considerable, one might almost say exhaustive, amount of academic literature has been produced on the subject of constructing, maintaining, supporting, and evaluating online communities for educational (and other) purposes (e.g. A. J. Kim, 2000; Preece, 2000; Smith & Kollock, 1999).”
Increasing participation in online communities: A framework for human-computer interaction (2007, background): “The framework accepts many of the principles of action put forward by Mantovani (1996b), including that actors construct interpretations of their environment based on their goals, which are referred to as situations.”
Searching for Safety Online: Managing "Trolling" in a Feminist Forum (2002, background): “In the best of cases, such forums can evolve into communities whose members share information, experience a sense of belonging, and provide mutual support (Preece, 2000; Rheingold, 1993).”
Activity Theory As a Lens for Characterizing the Participatory Unit. (2004, background): “…to employ what might be referred to as sociability strategies—that is, strategies to support people’s social interactions, focusing on issues of trust, time, value, collaboration, and gatekeeping (Barab, MaKinster, Moore, Cunningham, & the ILF Design Team, 2001; Preece, 2000; Trentin, 2001).”
Social media and migration: Virtual community 2.0 (2011, background): “One initial focus had been the capacity of online interactions to facilitate virtual communities that mimic traditional face to face communities (Jones, 1998; Komito, 1998, 2001; Preece, 2000; Rheingold, 1994; Smith & Kollock, 1999).”
Network Exchange Patterns in Online Communities (2011, background): “This sense of shared preferences is consistent with collective identity and shared interests in online communities (Postmes, Spears and Lea 2000, Preece 2000) and reinforced by the ability to read previous communication between online community members.”
Understanding the requirements for developing open source software systems (2002, background): “As a consequence, participants within these communities often participate in different roles within both technical and social networks [Smith and Kollock 1999, Preece 2000] in the course of developing, using, and evolving open software.”
Non-public and public online community participation: Needs, attitudes and behavior (2006, background): “By better understanding the dynamics of lurking and those who do it, online community managers and e-commerce entrepreneurs will be better equipped to build healthy, self-sustaining communities and make the decisions of whether they should entice those who lurk to become active posters [3].”
Why People Use Social Networking Sites (2009, background): “Research done in previous online communities has stressed the following motivational factors: 1) people with shared interests, 2) experiences and needs, 3) supportive and sociable relationships, 4) strong social feelings of belonging, and 5) a sense of shared identity [7] [8] [9].”
Capitalizing on Content: Information Adoption in Two Online communities (2008, methodology): “…generating important insights into their characteristics (e.g., Sproull and Faraj, 1997, Wellman and Gulia, 1999), their designs (e.g., Bieber et al., 2002, Preece, 2000), and the motivations for community members to contribute to them (e.g., Rafaeli and LaRose, 1993, Wasko and Faraj, 2000).”
Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning (2008, background): “…the importance of communication and the beneﬁts of collaboration in online learning have been highlighted in previous literature (Hamburg et al., 2003; Preece, 2000; Salmon, 2002; Thurmond & Wambach, 2004) and as a result most systems incorporate e-mail, online forums and discussion boards.”
Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities (2011, background): “…on what drives individuals to participate and contribute in these open and virtual forums and secondarily on what psychological, social, and economic factors sustain these communities (Butler 2001, Butler et al. 2007, Ma and Agarwal 2007, Preece 2000, Ren et al. 2007, Wasko and Faraj 2000).”