Mini Prototype Reflections
Mini Prototype Synopsis
Last week I created a “mini prototype” in order to explore another direction my thesis could take. I proposed a feature to replace post comments in Facebook groups, called Circle, which is a conversational space modeled after restorative circles. One person starts the circle by clicking the “Circle” button at the bottom of a post, located where the “Comment” button currently lives. They choose who they want to invite, then choose a single broad question about the post, such as “Choose one word to describe how you feel about this and explain why.” This person provides their own answer to kick the process off, then by sending the invitation, a space similar to the Facebook messenger space is created. As others provide their answers, chat bubbles appear with their avatars. People cannot reply directly to each other, but they can use emojis to show agreement, support, solidarity or other emotions indicated by the emojis available.
I chose Facebook this time because I’d received feedback at the end of last semester that I should try adapting restorative practices for a platform more widely used than Disqus. I also wanted to explore a more subversive change to the way we communicate on Facebook, so I imagined what it could be like if instead of commenting on posts, users invited each other to participate in “Circles”. The concept was routed in one of the insights I learned at the restorative justice training I attended, that restorative circles forbid back and forth conversation. This strips away the expectation of response when you are offering a story or information about yourself to a group of people, which has already been built into the Facebook comment interface. How does the expectation of response influence how people communicate in post comments, and how would the content and tone change if you were merely offering your point of view as opposed to participating in a back and forth conversation?
Does it feel more or less promising? Why?
This mini prototype feels more promising, if Facebook was a new product and and our behaviors and expectations of the site weren’t so hard-wired into how we use it. I’m aware that’s a really big if. But here’s why it feels promising: it’s less time consuming than the Disqus integration prototype, and it doesn’t stray too far away from the way that people comment on posts now. It’s also not aimed at conflict resolution like the Disqus integration, which left a lot of room for bad actors to take advantage of the process. The Disqus integration only had a chance of being effective when everyone involved was open to civil discussion, with or without the restorative justice principles it was built on. With the circle functionality on Facebook, users invite who they want to comment, as opposed to being vulnerable to comments from anyone who wants to comment.
What were unanticipated challenges or successes?
The interaction in this process that continues to challenge me is the circle interaction itself (above). The process conceptually is clear for me, but how to make the offering of people’s answers to the question effective is still a challenge for me. For instance, the circle interface as I designed it in this prototype looks like just another messenger interface. I want to do more with this, and I want the interface to offer something, or produce a feeling or experience that sets it apart from messenger interfaces. It would definitely help, for this prototype and in general, to define what my desired outcomes are for this interaction.
What are key insights and implications of this exploration to your thesis exploration and concept?
The insight I mentioned above, about how restorative circles forbid back and forth conversation, helped me and others in my class to better understand what makes circles different from any other way of conversing and what I’m trying to do.
I definitely need to flush out the implications of one user inviting others to participate in the circle. Why give people this opportunity in the first place? Should there be a limit to how many can join? How many simultaneous circles can take place at the same time, and what are the technological implications or obstacles to that?
Is a circle format too prohibitive of free and open discourse? It would most likely prevent back and forth debate, which is certainly an important functionality that Facebook and other platforms have given us — provided that debate is respectful and informed.
Regardless if this is the idea you’ll be pursuing moving forward, reflect on the insights learned that may be applied to future prototypes (for example, lessons on reward, cue indicators, etc.).
It felt good to stray from using restorative practices for conflict resolution for a moment, and instead use them to reimagine both a conversational interface and the conventions that currently exist for how to contribute thoughts and ideas on Facebook. I’ve found myself more interested in ways to subvert the interfaces that will facilitate more civility, as opposed to conflict resolution. One persistent obstacle in designing for conflict resolution is the lack of willingness to resolve the conflict or to take accountability.
How would a restorative circle process limit us? How would it protect us and prevent us from harming each other? Facebook built us a road for communicating, but it didn’t provide us with any lanes, barriers or rules until it was a little bit too late. What if they had done more?
