] The design gap between computer-as-box and
] computer-as-door persists because of a diminished
] conception of the user. The user of a piece of social
] software is not just a collection of individuals, but a
] group. Individual users take on roles that only make
] sense in groups: leader, follower, peacemaker, process
] nazi, and so on. There are also behaviors that can only
] occur in groups, from consensus building to social
] climbing. And yet, despite these obvious differences
] between personal and social behaviors, we have very
] little design practice that treats the group as an entity
] to be designed for.
]
]
] There is enormous value to be gotten in closing that gap,
] and it doesn't require complicated new tools. It just
] requires new ways of looking at old problems. Indeed,
] much of the most important work in social software has
] been technically simple but socially complex.

[ Worth a read... ]

This also adds ammunition to the design of one of my future works, collaborative desktops -- graphical wikis, kind of. Imagine your desktop as a virtual desktop, your various friends a spacial scroll away -- look at what they are doing right now, what their environment looks like, place things in their attention, onto their desktop...

[ ... that's very intriguing. I like the concept of maintaining a public space naturally... and having the ability to metaphorically step into a buddies office and hash something out. -k]

Shirky: Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software