1. Intermittent Participation: How
Sociability and Usability Shape
Mediated Mobile Interaction
Dana Rotman, Prof. Jennifer Preece

2. INTRODUCTION
Smart phone are everywhere, offering constant
connectivity, creating a culture of constant engagement –
through social networking tools and collaborative applications.
Social networking – used to take place in a stationary
environments, now can be done everywhere, anytime, on the
go.
How do these changes affect social interactions?

3. PREVIOUS WORK
Mobile communication “affect every aspect of our personal and
professional lives either directly or indirectly” (Katz and
Aakhus, 2002)
HCI – research of specific applications, lesser emphasis on the
overall effect of perpetual connectivity on mediated interaction
Education – emphasis on mobile applications in the learning
environment, less on the social aspects of mobile connectivity
in educational settings

4. PREVIOUS WORK
“There is a youth culture that finds in mobile communication an
adequate form of expression and reinforcement” (Castells et al.
2007)
Young users are considered part of a “multimedia
generation”, they are “digital natives” that were born with
technology, and specifically mobile technology, at the palm of
their hands.

5. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
MOBILITY INITIATIVE
• Honors students and other selected groups of students
received mobile devices (iPhones) to be used on and off
campus.
• Integrated curricular and student-life applications within a
university portal
• Mobile devices are used in class or for class projects
• The university promoted mediated interaction between
students and faculty

6. PARTICIPANTS
Honors students Communication
students
N 12 (13%) 21 (64%)
Age 18.7 (SD = .5) 20.1 (SD = 1)
Gender (M:F) 2:3 2:3
Previous 100% 100%
ownership of
mobile device
Previous 100% 100%
ownership of
computer
Social 100% 100%
networking
profiles

7. METHODOLOGY
• Focus groups –
• Open ended discussions that were used to elicit and validate collective
testimonials, and produce particular experiences, practices and insights.
• Personal interviews –
• Based on data collected in the focus groups, some participants were
contacted for personal interviews in which the same topics were
discussed in depth
• Cooperative Inquiry –
• An interactive method for engaging users in technology design, in
which participants reflect on their use of technology, their likes and
dislikes (Druin et al. 2005)
• Survey data –
• Collecting demographics and data about personal interaction patterns

8. FINDINGS –
COMMUNICATION PATTERN
All the Time
100
Every Hour
90
Several Times
a Day
80
Once a Day
70
Not Everyday
60
Never
50
40
30
% or Responses
20
10
0

9. SOCIABILITY
People
Purpose Policy
(Preece, 2000)

10. SOCIABILITY
Communication
Partner
Message
Etiquette
Content

11. SOCIABILITY
Communication
Partner
Subjective
Etiquette
norm
Message Content

12. USABILITY
Usability - ensuring that interactive products are easy to
learn, effective to use and enjoyable from the user's perspective
(Shneiderman, 2009).
“My daily life revolves around my iPhone, I just have
everything on my iPhone, my music, my email, my
calendar, Facebook, reminders. I can write myself notes, just
everything on one spot" (Kate, female)

13. USABILITY ISSUES
Dissimilar mobile and online applications

14. USABILITY ISSUES
Keyboard layout and lack of tactile movement

15. USABILITY ISSUES
Screen size – problematic when interacting online

16. INTERMITTENT
PARTICIPATION
“I can check it (Facebook) on my mobile too, but I don't reply to
anyone on this; I don't send out any information. I check my
email, my Gmail, if I have to send an email or if it's something I can
write
quickly, that is more urgent, then I do send it off my mobile…. But
if I have my laptop I would probably take out my laptop and use
it" (Ben, male)
"If I have messages or check into chat, I'm not going to reply to all
of them. I just like to check and know that, yes, I have to reply to
these messages" (Samantha, female).

17. CONCLUSIONS
• When using iPhones, sociability and usability pulled users in
different directions
• Users could not enjoy the affordances of mobile connectivity
in their entirety due to design hindrances
• The tension between sociability and usability creates an
awareness of others, while circumventing usability
constraints, and calibrating participation to the most desired
and useful level.
•Filtering information and maintaining intermittent
participation is somewhat similar to the communication
overload phenomenon (Whittaker et al. 1998)

18. AND THEN…..

19. THANK YOU
drotman@umd.edu
www.danarotman.com