digitaljaneaustenproject

[digitaljaneaustenproject]

I want to try and explain this niche media theory to everyone

Media theory is one of those things that can really help explain why designs do the things the do. And why we do what we do with designs. But it's often written in ways that are really hard to get what the author is trying to say without also being someone who studies media theory.

So I'm going to try and explain one of these theories clearly. Because it's one that I've found really helpful to get what we're doing with the Jane Austen project.

So these are McLuhan's Laws of the Media.

McLuhan saw everything invented and used by humans (tools, language, ideas, computers, all of it) as extensions of a human. From there he proposed these four laws (but really they're questions) to try and understand any human thing as it works as an extension of a human; something a human _does_ something with. Then, with those questions he realized that all of these human "artifacts" like tools and technology are being used by people as metaphors.

So his laws of the media help us consider what a metaphor could do in whatever setting. More "Questions about the Metaphors" than "Laws of the Media". And they are:

Question 1: What does it magnify?

What do we do more because of this metaphor?

What do we do more easily?

What do we notice around us more?

~~~

Question 2: What does it make obsolete?

What do we get to skip doing because of this metaphor?

What is it going to let us forget?

What is it going to make us forget?

~~~

Question 3: What does it bring back that something else had made obsolete?

What does the metaphor remind us of that we thought we had left behind?

What do we start doing again?

What do we get to see from a new perspective?

~~~

Question 4: What does it flip into when pushed to the extreme?

What might happen if this metaphor gets used everywhere?

What might happen if we get reliant on it?

What might happen if we forget where it came from?

~~~

That's not quite the whole thing. He connects his ideas to some Aristotle. But these questions are the most important part.

So what? Why am I trying to explain a 50 year old theory to everyone I meet? Because I can't stop talking about metaphors as paths to better digital designs and experiences. And these questions are where I start with every metaphor.

Everything humans make involves choices. A metaphor we design around is a choice that can have a lot of impact on what people do with that design. These questions make sure we think about those choices and those impacts first.

And hopefully the theory doesn't confuse us too much along the way.

[digitaljaneaustenproject]

I think we figured out how to host a Zoom meeting like Jane Austen would.

First thing: Who should talk to who?

As the two hosts, we greeted each person one at a time -- in-person or in the room -- and brought them to one or two people who had already arrived, introduced them, and then left them chatting to get back to greeting arriving people. This got small talk going and gave everyone something to do while others trickled in.

And we planned ahead to make this small talk as easy as possible. Between us two hosts, we knew everyone who was expected to be there. So we compared notes and planned some small groups that would give everyone something to connect about. We thought about the different reasons they wanted to do this workshop and different levels of design experience. We were mostly grad students and postdocs, so we put the one professor and one undergrad student together for small talk since professors are used to helping undergrads to open up and share ideas.

Once our party was starting to warm up, we got everyone together to talk about the point of the workshop, and let people choose which room they wanted to start in. We had guessed people would default to where we had started them, and that's exactly what happened. Then we got started actually designing.

Next: Keeping conversation going

Starting conversations was easy, we had asked everyone to think of some sources of fiction to use as starting points, and everyone was excited to share those and immediately started bouncing ideas around of what they had in common or what stood out as different.

We had some guiding questions for each room, but we didn't expect everyone to stick to exactly that. Especially since we borrowed these questions from some pretty confusing media theory. But still, after a bit of general talk about the different ideas, conversation was starting to peter out. As hosts, we used those questions to start conversation up again. From my room, it took about half an hour for them to really be talking with each other and without me.

At that point, I could backchannel with my co-host to check in on the other room. From my breakout room, I could hear through the in-person tablets that conversation was happening in the other room, but not what they were saying.

Even though we had told people they could wander between rooms as they wanted (and that we'd wander with them to get them settled in), no one did. So halfway through I just said I was going to check out the other room and did someone want to come with me? We got there and kicked out my co-host and one other person. So we got the moving between rooms we wanted and it worked, but only because I forced it.

Finally: Staying aware of the larger party

The last step was bringing everyone back together to see what they thought.

I mentioned before that I could hear a bit of background noise from the other breakout room because we had two tablets in the same physical room. And I liked this. As someone who wasn't physically in the shared room, I felt like I was part of a larger team collaborating together. But that wasn't everyone's experience. In the room people agreed that hearing the other tablet helped them feel connected, but the other remote folks were more mixed.

I think it came down to how we were listening. I had an external microphone and speaker combo, but people who were earbuds said it was distracting to have that background noise in their ears. So maybe next time we recommend speakers so it feels more being in one of a set of rooms than in a phone call.

~~~

Hosting a zoom workshop like Jane Austen worked! People made connections and shared ideas. It felt much more like an in-person workshop than a remote one, even though I was at my dining room table. And yes, I've started doing this for "just for fun" zooms with friends too.

It does take more set-up, but not as much as planning to host a ball. And from our side of things it was worth it to get to talk about designing with the Hobbit as a metaphor. But more on that another time.

[digitaljaneaustenproject]

What Jane Austen Taught Me About Running Zoom Meetings

Many of our social interactions happen digital these days, even “face-to-face” ones like Zoom meetings. It’s still just not the same as in-person, whether for meetings, a book club, or just to hang out. There must be a better way to gather digitally. I think a big piece of why digital isn’t working is that we don’t have social norms there.

Social norms are what make a conversation flow smoothly. You see it in how close you stand or sit together, how you take turns, and in the type of space you choose. Basic videoconferencing has none of this: we can’t control distance, audio lags or mutes, and it’s almost always the same black screen of videos from job interviews to birthday parties.

Some tools try to mimic in-person social interactions and norms in digital meeting spaces, kind of like a video game. Each person has an avatar that moves around a digital space and hears nearby conversation. The word for directly recreating things or experiences into digital tools is skeuomorphism. It’s easy for people to learn because it’s just like the other familiar version. But it also can point out the ways that digital just can’t be the same as in-person. Making a videogame-like social event does bring some social norms into that digital conversation, but it also reminds us that we aren’t in person, we can’t shake hands, we look at the whole room like a map instead of from our eyes.

So digital doesn’t work and just mimicking in-person doesn’t make it all intuitively work. So I’m going to look for new social norms.

Actually, I’m going to look for really old ones.

~~~

Regency era England definitely had well-established social norms. Think Jane Austen’s books, like Pride and Prejudice, or Netflix’s Bridgerton. The middle and upper classes of that time easily knew what to expect from each other and what would be expected of them just from where they were and what was going on, thanks to social rules and etiquette. At least some of these social norms feel overly strict to a modern eye. And this is actually what I was looking for with digital social norms. Computer rules are also very, very strict (eventually it’s all 1s and 0s). They don’t give us wiggle room within the rules. In a lecture, you shouldn’t talk, but you can whisper to the friend next to you. But try whispering in a Zoom meeting while muted. So what can Jane Austen’s social norms give digital meeting spaces? I have 3 ideas to start.

~~~

1. Being a host is a social job, not tech support

The host of Regency ball had little in common with a Zoom host. On Zoom, hosting is muting and unmuting attendees, managing recording, and placing avatars in different rooms; tech support. Being a Regency host was social, they greeted each person on arrival, introduced them people they should know, and generally showed them what the ball had to offer. And this was before they entered the ball.

I think it would be nice to not just appear in a sea of black squares, not knowing who was there and not knowing if conversation had already started. Imagine a one-on-one greeting between you and an organizer who took you to a small group of peers and introduced you, or brought you to the full group after explaining that people are waiting for the actual book club to start but can join breakout rooms to chat in the meantime.

~~~

2. Dancing lets us get to know each other and the group

Don’t worry, I am not going to ask you to dance in Zoom. Like I said, I’m not here for skeuomorphism. But a major reason for dancing at balls (you know, besides it was fun) was a chance for two people to chat one-on-one and for the larger community to know who was chatting with who. Everyone saw who was dancing not just by looking at the dance floor, but also by looking at people’s dance cards (which they carried or hung on their wrist) and seeing whose name was written for each dance.

Hybrid teams struggle to get to know each other because they mostly communicate through text or in team meetings with little time for social chatting. Us remote workers miss having a space to just talk, not about work or anything in particular. We could make digital meeting spaces that use voice chat to let pairs of people quickly connect and talk, and use a digital dance card to let the group see who’s been chatting with who.

~~~

3. Candles set the stage and expectations

Little details at a Regency ball could give important cues to attendees. The length of the candles burning in the rooms would tell people how long the ball was expected to last and that told them what was available at the ball. Short candles? A few hours of dancing and some food. Long candles? Settle in for a long night and look for places to take a break with card games or other amusement.

Digital meetings spaces are entirely missing this. Zoom always looks the same! It doesn’t matter if I’m playing a game with my family or presenting a progress report. The skeuomorphism can help here to bring in the same cues we have in person; make the background a living room for game night or an office for the presentation. But sometimes that just reminds us that we’re not in a living room together and might make the video uncanny. I want digital meeting places to have décor cues that are all their own. Because digital meeting spaces are not just replacements for in person ones. They’re something new and I want us to really explore what we can do with them.