] 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.

This is a strong essay that I couldn't quite find the right hooks to quote to convince you to read it -- but you should. It nicely summarizes -- in a way I haven't seen before -- why some of the new group stuff works, and why some of the common group phenomina is endemic to the mediums as presented. We talked to Clay on our radio show one day -- and he was great. We at least mentioned Memestreams, and it would be interesting if he's familiar with it and how it would be positioned within this essay.

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...

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