Politeness As a Social Software Requirement Brian Whitworth, Massey University, New Zealand

Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 65

Politeness as a Social Software Requirement Brian Whitworth, Massey University, New Zealand

Abstract

If politeness makes society a nicer place to be, by lubricating the interaction of its human parts, then the same is important for online society. As the Internet becomes more social software can mediate social interactions, serve as a social agent or act as a personal assistant, but to suc- ceed in these roles it must learn a new skill - politeness. This article proposes politeness as the distinguishing mark of a new generation of community software based on the benefits of social synergy rather than technical efficiency. Conversely, selfish software is currently a widespread problem as politeness is a software design “blind spot”. An informational definition of politeness as the giving of choice suggests social software should be: 1. Respectful, 2. Transparent, 3. Helpful, and 4. Personal and 5. Responsive. For the Internet to realize its social as well as technical potential, software must be not only useful and usable but also polite. [Article copies are available for purchase from InfoSci-on-Demand.com]

Keywords: Agent; Computer Performance; It Evaluation Methods; Requirements Analysis; Socio-technical Design; System Errors; Technology Trends

Introduction right. Miller notes that if I accidentally hit my thumb with a hammer, I blame myself Computer Agents not the hammer, yet people may blame an equally mechanical computer for errors they Software, with its ability to make choices, initiate (Miller, 2004, p. 31). Computers seems to have crossed the threshold from are just as mechanical as cars, but while a inert machine to interaction participant, car inertly reflects its driver’s intentions, as the term human-computer interaction computers now ask questions, request in- (HCI) implies. Computers today are no formation, suggest actions and give advice. longer just tools that respond passively to Nor are computers mediating a social in- directions, but agents, assistants and, in teraction, like email, simply passive, as the general, online participants in their own software, like a facilitator, affects the social

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 66 Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 interaction possibilities (Lessig, 1999). As means a user cannot operate a computer computers evolve, people increasingly find system, the software has created a human them active collaborators and participators, processing error. When software socially rather than passive appliances or media. In offends and drives away users however it these new social roles, as agent, assistant or is a social error. In the case of a usability facilitator, software has a new requirement error, users want to use the system but don’t – to be polite. know how to. In contrast for the case of If software can be social it should be impolite software users understand it all designed accordingly. A company would too well and choose to avoid it. Modern not let a socially ignorant person represent it socio-technical systems cannot afford social to important clients. Yet often today’s soft- errors as without social participation they ware interrupts, overwrites, nags, changes, fail. In practical terms a web site that no- connects, downloads and installs in ways one visits is as much a failure as one that that annoy and offend users (Cooper, 1999). crashes. Whether a system fails because the While such behaviour is not illegal it is computer can’t run it, the user doesn’t know certainly impolite. how to run it, or the user doesn’t want to run it doesn’t matter because the end effect is Selfish Software the same - the application doesn’t run. For example the author’s new 2006 The contrast to polite software is “selfish computer came with McAfee Spamkiller software”. Like a selfish person who acts as which when activated then deliberately (by if only he or she exists, so selfish software design) overwrote my Outlook Express mail acts as if it were the only application on server account name and password with its your computer. It typically runs itself at own values. After checking why I could no every opportunity, loading at start-up, and longer receive mail I found my mail server running continuously in the background. account details were wrong, so retyped in It feels free to interrupt you any time, to the correct values to fix the problem and demand what it wants, or announce what got my mail. However next time the sys- it is doing, e.g. after installing new modem tem rebooted, McAfee rewrote over my software it then loaded itself on every mail account details again. The McAfee start-up, and regularly interrupted me to go help person explained that Spamkiller was online to check for updates to itself. It never protecting me by taking control, and rout- found any, even after many days, so finally ing all my email through itself. To get my after yet another pointless “Searching for mail I had to go into McAfee and tell it my upgrades” message I decided to uninstall specific email account details. That when I it. As in “The Apprentice” TV show, the did this it didn’t work is less the issue than reaction to assistants that don’t do what why this well known software: you want is: “You’re fired!” If impolite software can drive users a. Felt entitled to overwrite the email away, this implies a new type of software account details a user had typed in. error – a social error. When a program gets b. Could not copy my account details, into an infinite loop that “hangs” the com- which it wrote over, to create its own puter the software has created an informa- account. tion processing error. When poor usability

This same software also “took charge” The value of politeness whenever Outlook started, forcing me to wait as it did a slow foreground check for The Oxford English Dictionary (http://dic- email spam. Yet in two weeks of use, it never tionary.oed.com) defines politeness as: found any spam at all! Again, not being “… behaviour that is respectful or hostage to this software, I concluded it was considerate to others”. selfish software and uninstalled it. Taking politeness as consideration of the other in a social interaction, its predicted Polite Computing effect is a more pleasant social interaction. A general increase in politeness will be argued Politeness is distinct from usefulness and to make a society a nicer place to be, whether usability, where usefulness addresses it is online or offline. Polite computing can system functionality and usability is how contribute to computing by: people use that functionality. The first focuses on what the computer does and 1. Increasing legitimate interactions. the second on how users get the computer 2. Reducing anti-social attacks. to do it. Polite computing in contrast is 3. Increasing synergistic interactions. about social relations rather than computer 4. Increasing software use. power or cognitive ease. It addresses the requirement for a social entity to collaborate There is nothing to stop programmers rather than compete with another party. faking politeness, just as nothing stops Hence software can be easy to use yet rude, people in the physical world from doing so, or polite but hard to use. While usability but when people behave politely, cognitive reduces training and documentation costs, dissonance theory finds they also tend to politeness lets a software agent work with feel more polite (Festinger, 1957). Likewise a competent user without frustration. Both if programmers design for politeness, the usability and politeness however fall under overall effect will be positive, even though the rubric of human-centred design. some may pretend. Polite computing is about designing software to support politeness, not mak- Politeness and Legitimacy ing people polite. People are socialized by physical society, but the widespread Legitimate interactions, defined as those problem of software that is rude, inconsid- that are both fair and in the common good, erate or selfish is a general software design have been proposed as the complex social “blind spot” (Cooper, 1999) that cries out source of civilized prosperity (Whitworth & for rectification. Currently most software is deMoor, 2003), and a core requirement for socially “blind”, with the notable exception any prosperous and enduring community of socio-technical applications like Wikipe- (Fukuyama, 1992), while societies where dia, Facebook and E-Bay. This article aims unfair corruption and win-lose conflicts still to define, specify and illustrate an informa- reign are among the poorest in the world tion based vision of polite computing for a (Transparency-International, 2001). While new generation of social software. legitimate interactions are fair and in the public good, anti-social acts like theft or

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 68 Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 murder are unfair to victims and harm so- against a system where the powerful are ciety overall. In crimes like theft or murder perceived to predate the weak (Power, the victimized party usually has little or no 2000), and hacking is vengeance against a choice, while in legitimate interactions like person, a company, or the capitalist society trade both parties can choose to trade or not. in general (Forester & Morrison, 1994). Hence one can argue that polite acts are Politeness contradicts the view that since more than fair, in that one party gives the everyone takes what they can, so can I. That other more choice than required. To do as some people are polite, and give choice to the law requires is not politeness precisely others, may cause the neutral to become because it is required, e.g. one does not polite and those against society to become thank a driver who stops at a red light, yet neutral. Politeness and security are then the one thanks the driver who stops to let you two sides of the same coin of social health. into a line of traffic. While laws specify By analogy, a gardener defends his or her what citizens should do, politeness is about crops from weeds, but does not wait for what they could do. If politeness involves every weed to be killed before fertilizing. offering more choices in an interaction If politeness grows a better society, one than the law requires then it begins where should not wait to use it until every threat fixed laws end. If criminal acts fall below is purged. If security reduces anti-social the law, then polite acts rise above it, and acts, and politeness encourages social acts, polite, legitimate and anti-social acts can be they are complementary not mutually ex- ordered by the degree of choice offered to clusive functions. Likewise diplomatic and the other party or parties (Figure 1a). In this military acts are viewed by most countries view politeness increases social “health”, as complementary rather than mutually just as criminality poisons it. exclusive.

Politeness and Security Politeness and Prosperity

Even if polite computing has value, Over thousands of years, as physical so- shouldn’t it take a back seat to security ciety became more “civilized”, this has issues? Yet upgrading security every time created enormous prosperity, so for the an attack exploits another loophole can be first time in history some economies now a never-ending cycle. An alternative is to produce more food than their people can develop strategies to reduce the motivation eat (as their obesity epidemics testify). to attack society (Rose, Khoo, & Straub, The bloody history of humanity seems 1999). Politeness can help one common to represent a social evolution from zero- source of attacks - resentment or anger sum (win-lose) interactions, such as war,

Figure 1. Community practice by social concept based on degree of choice given

a. Social concept Anti-social Legitimate Polite Degree of choice for the other party b. Community practice Justice Law Etiquette

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 69 to non-zero-sum (win-win) interactions, An information definition such as trade (Wright, 2001). Scientific of politeness research illustrates this social synergy, as for researchers to freely give their hard earned Social Software knowledge to all seems at first foolish, but when a critical mass do this, people gain To treat machines as people seems foolish, more than they could have by working like talking to an empty car, but words alone. Synergy means that when people in seemingly addressed to cars on the road are a community give to each other, they gain actually to their drivers. While the cars are more than is possible by selfish activity, indeed machines, their drivers are people. e.g. Open Source Software (OSS) products Likewise while a computer is a machine, like Linux now compete with commercial people “drive” the programs we interact products like Office. The mathematics of with. Hence people show significantly more social synergy are that while individual relational behaviours when the other party gains increase linearly with group size, in computer mediated communication is synergy gains increase geometrically, as clearly human than when it is not (Shect- they depend on the number of interactions man & Horowitz, 2003), and studies find not the number of group members. The that people don’t treat computers as people Internet uses social synergy, as we each outside the mediation context (Goldstein, only “sow” a small part of it, but from it Alsio, & Werdenhoff, 2002) – just as people can “reap” the world’s knowledge. don’t usually talk to empty cars. Reacting to a software installation program as if to a Politeness and Usage person is not unreasonable if the program has a social source. Social questions like: A study of reactions to a computerized Chi- “Do I trust you?” and “What is your at- nese word-guessing game found that when titude to me?” now apply. If computers the software apologized after a wrong an- have achieved the status of semi-intelligent swer by saying “We are sorry that the clues agents, it is natural for people to treat them were not helpful to you.” the game was rated socially, and thus expect politeness. more enjoyable than when the computer A social agent is an interacting entity simply said “This is not correct” ((Tzeng, that represents another social entity in an 2004). In general, politeness improves interaction, either person or group, e.g. if an the social interactions of a society which installation program represents a company makes it a nicer place to be. The reader can (a social entity) the installation program is a judge for him or herself whether the World social agent that interacts with the customer Wide Web is currently a nice place to be, on behalf of the company. The interaction or whether its “dark side”, which includes is social even if the agent is a computer, spam, spyware, viruses, hackers, pop-up and an install creates a social contract ads, nagware, identity theft, solicitations, even though the software is not social in pornography, spoofers and worms (Power, itself. In the special case where a software 2000), means it could benefit from polite agent works for the party it interacts with, computing. If software were more polite, it is a software assistant, both working for people might be more willing to use it and and to the same user. In all such cases of less willing to abuse it.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 70 Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 human-computer interaction (HCI), social from the general social conceptual dimen- concepts like politeness apply. sion of choice in the social interaction. In this view while societies “implement” Politeness as Niceness different etiquettes, politeness is the common “design goal”, just as legitimacy is Nass defines politeness as “being nice” to the “spirit” behind laws that vary in detail the other party (Nass, 2004), and argues between societies. Indeed it is the social that when another says “I think I’m a concept that allows a society to generate good teacher; what do you think?” polite a new laws and new etiquettes for new people respond “You’re great”, even if they situations. don’t think so. In this view, agreeing with If politeness can take different forms another’s self praise is considered one of in different societies, to ask which imple- the “most fundamental rules of politeness” mentation applies online is to ask the wrong (Nass, 2004, p36). Yet while agreeableness question. This is like asking whether one may often accompany politeness, it does country should adopt the laws of another. not define it if one can be both agreeably Laws must be “home grown” for each impolite and politely disagreeable. One can new case, so the right question is how to politely refuse, beg to differ, respectfully “reinvent” politeness in new online cases, object and humbly criticize, i.e. disagree whether for chat, wiki, email or other but still be polite. Conversely one can give groupware. Just as different physical so- charity to others yet be impolite, i.e. be cieties develop different local etiquettes kind but rude. Being polite is thus differ- and laws, so new online communities must ent from being kind, e.g. parents may be develop their own ethics and practices, with kind to a young child but not let it choose software playing a critical support role. its own bedtime. While different applications may need a different politeness implementations, it will Politeness and Etiquette be possible to develop general design “pat- terns” which specify politeness in abstract To apply politeness to computer program- information terms (Alexander, 1964). ming, it must be defined in information terms. If politeness is “considering others”, Politeness as Giving Choice then since different societies “consider” differently, what is polite in one culture If the person considered knows what is can be rude in another. Since there is no “considerate” for them, politeness can be universal “polite behaviour”, there seems defined abstractly as the giving of choice no basis to apply politeness to the logic of to another in a social interaction. Doing programming. Yet while different countries this is then always considerate if the other have different laws, the goal of fairness that knows what is good for them, though the underlies the law can be attributed to every latter assumption may not always be true, society (Rawls, 2001). Likewise different e.g. a young baby. In a conversation, where cultures could have different “etiquettes” the locus of channel control passes back but a common goal of politeness. Figure 1b and forth between parties, it is polite to distinguishes the specific implementations give control to the other party (Whitworth, of systems of justice, legality and etiquette 2005), e.g. it is impolite to interrupt some-

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 71 one, as that removes their choice to speak, phone service to download without and polite to let them finish talking, as asking. they then choose when to stop. This gives 2. Change your computer settings. Soft- a definition of politeness as: ware can change browser home page, email preferences or file associations. … any unrequired support for situating the 3. Spy on what you do online. Spyware, locus of choice control of a social interac- stealthware or software back doors can tion with another party to it, given that gather information from your computer control is desired, rightful and optional.” without your knowledge, or record your (Whitworth, 2005, p355) mouse clicks as you surf the web and, even worse, give your private informa- Unrequired means the choice given is tion to others. more than required by the law, as a required choice is not politeness. Optional means For example Microsoft’s Windows the polite party has the ability to choose, XP Media Player, was reported to quietly as politeness must be voluntary. Desired by record the DVDs it played and use the the receiver means giving choice is only user’s computer’s connection to “phone polite if the other wants it, e.g. “After you” home”, i.e. send data back to Microsoft is not polite when facing a difficult task. (Editor, 2002). Such problems differ from Politeness means giving desired choices, security threats, where hackers or viruses not forcing the locus of control, with its bur- break in to damage information. This den of action, upon others. Finally, rightful problem concerns those we invite into our means that consideration of someone acting information home, not those who break illegally is not polite, e.g. to considerately in, e.g. “software bundling”, where users hand a gun to a serial killer about to kill choose to install one product but are forced is not polite. to get many:

Impolite Computing When we downloaded the beta version of Triton [AOL’s latest instant messenger This definition suggests that impolite com- software], we also got AOL Explorer – an puting has a long history. Spam for example Internet Explorer shell that opens full fills inboxes with messages users do not screen, to AOL’s AIM Today home page want (Whitworth & Whitworth, 2004), and when you launch the IM client – as well as is impolite because it takes choice away Plaxo Helper, an application that ties in with from email receivers. Pop-up windows are the Plaxo social-networking service. Triton also impolite, as they “hijack” the user’s also installed two programs that ran silently cursor or point of focus, and take away the in the background even after we quit AIM user choice of what they want to look at, and AOL Explorer. (Larkin, 2005). hence many browsers now prevent pop-ups. Impolite computer programs: Likewise Yahoo’s “typical” installation of their IM also downloads their Search 1. Use your computer’s services. Software Toolbar, anti-spyware and anti-pop-up soft- can use your hard drive to store infor- ware, desktop and system tray shortcuts, as mation cookies, or your long distance well as Yahoo Extras, which inserts Yahoo

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 72 Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 links on your browser. It also alters the us- 1. Respectful. Polite software respects ers’ home page and auto-search functions user rights, does not pre-empt user to point to Yahoo by default. Even Yahoo choices, and does not act on or copy employee, Jeremy Zawodny dislikes this: information without the permission of its owner. I don’t know which company started using 2. Transparent. Polite software does not this tactic, but it is becoming the standard sneak or change things in secret, but procedure for lots of software out there. openly declares what it does, who it And it sucks. Leave my settings, preferences represents, and how they can be con- and desktop alone. (http://jeremy.zawodny. tacted. com/blog/archives/005121.html) 3. Helpful. Polite software helps users make informed choices, giving in- A similar scheme is to use security formation that is useful to the other updates to install new products, e.g. “Micro- party. soft used the January 2007 security update 4. Personal. Polite software remembers to induce users to try Internet Explorer 7.0 its past interactions with a user, and whether they wanted to or not. But after carries forward past choices to future discovering they had been involuntarily interactions. upgraded to the new browser, they next 5. Responsive. Polite software responds found that application incompatibility ef- appropriately to user actions, reflecting fectively cut them off from the Internet.” user directions rather than pursuing its (Pallatto, 2007) own directions. Security cannot defend against people one invites in, especially if the offender Each of these points is now considered is the security system itself. However in in more detail. a connected society social influence can be very powerful. In physical society the Respectful withering looks given to the impolite are not toothless, as what others think of you Respect includes not taking another’s right- affects how they behave towards you. In ful choices. If two parties jointly share a traditional societies banishment was often resource, one party’s choices can deny the considered worse than a death sentence. other’s, e.g. if I delete a shared file you can Likewise an online company with a reputa- no longer print it. Polite software should tion for riding roughshod over user rights not preempt rightful user information may find this is not good for business. choices regarding common resources like the desktop, registry, hard drive, task bar, file associations, quick launch and other Specifying Software user configurable settings. Pre-emptive Politeness acts, like changing a browser home page without asking, act unilaterally on a mutual Based on previous work (Whitworth, 2005) resource and so are impolite. it can be suggested that polite software Information choice cases are rarely is: simple, e.g. a purchaser can use that software but not edit, copy or distribute it.

Such rights can be specified as privileges, that nothing is hidden. Conversely, to act in terms of specified information actors, secretly behind another’s back, to sneak, methods, objects and contexts (Table 1) or to hide ones actions, for any reason, (Whitworth, 2006). To apply politeness in is impolite. Secrecy in an interaction is such cases requires a legitimacy baseline, impolite because the other has no choice e.g. a software provider has no right to regarding things they don’t know about. unilaterally upgrade a computer the user Hiding your identity reduces my choices, owns (though the Microsoft Windows Vista as hidden parties are untouchable and un- End User License Agreement (EULA) accountable for their actions. When polite seems to imply this). Likewise users have people interact, they declare who they are no right to unilaterally upgrade, as this and what they are doing. edits the product source code. In such cases If polite people do this, polite software politeness applies, e.g. the software sug- should do the same. Users should see who gests an update and the user agrees, or the is doing what on their computer. However user requests an update and the software when Windows Task Manager shows cryp- agrees (for the provider). Similarly while tic process like CTSysVol.exe, attributed to a company that creates a browser owns it, the user, it could be system critical process the same logic means users own data they or one left over from a long uninstalled create with the browser, e.g. a cookie. Hence product. Lack of transparency is why after software cookies require user permission, 2-3 years Windows becomes “old”. With and users should be able to view, edit or every installation, selfish software puts delete “their” cookies. itself everywhere, so the taskbar fills with icons, the desktop with images, the disk Transparent with files and the registry with records. Many applications consider themselves so Part of a polite greeting in most cultures is to important they need to load at start-up and introduce oneself and state one’s business. run continuously just in case you need them. Holding out an open hand, to shake hands, When many applications do this it slows shows that the hand has no weapon, and down the computer considerably. Taskbar

Table 1. Socio-technical actors, objects and methods

Actors Objects Methods People Persona (represent people) Create/Delete/Undelete Groups Containers (contain objects) Edit/Revert Agents Items (convey meaning) Archive/Unarchive - Comments (dependent mean- View/Hide ing) - Mail (transmit meaning) Move/Undo - Votes (choice meaning) Display/Reject Join/Resign Include/Exclude

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 74 Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 icon growth is just the tip of the iceberg of It is unclear how the “Course Compass” what is happening to the entire computer, as differs from the “Companion Website”, many start-ups don’t show on the taskbar. and why both seem to exclude “Instruc- Because selfish programs put files wherever tor Resources” and “Help Downloading”. they like, uninstalled applications are not Clicking on these choices, as is typical for removed cleanly, and over time Windows such sites, leads only to further confusing accretes an ever increasing “residue” of files menu choices. The impolite assumption is and registry records left-over from previous that users enjoy clicking links to see where installs, until eventually only reinstalling they go. Yet information overload is a seri- the entire operating system recovers system ous problem for web users, who have no performance. time for hyperlink merry-go-rounds. The problem is that the operating Yet to not offer choices at all on the system keeps no record to make who does grounds that users are too stupid to un- what transparent to the user. An operating derstand them is also impolite. Installing system Source Registry could link all online software can be complex, but so is install- technical processes to their social sources, ing satellite TV technology, and those who giving contact and other details. “Source” install the latter do not just come in and take could be a property of every desktop icon, over. They know that socially the user is in context menu item, taskbar icon, hard drive charge, and they expect to hear their choices file or any other resource. A user could presented to them in an understandable way delete all resources allocated by a given or they may decide not to install. Complex source without concern that they were installations are simplified by choice depen- system critical. Windows messages could dency analysis, of how choices are linked, as also state their source, so users know who Linux’s installer does. Letting a user choose a message is from. Application transpar- to install an application they want minus a ency would let users decide what to keep critical system component is not a choice and what to drop. but a trap. Application-critical components are part of the higher choice to install or Helpful not, e.g. a user’s permission to install may imply access to hard drive, registry and A third politeness property is to help the start menu, but not to desktop, system tray, user by offering understandable choices, favourites or file associations. as a user cannot properly choose from options they do not understood. Offering Personal options that confuse is inconsiderate and impolite, e.g. a course text web site offers It is not enough to give choices now but the choices: forget them later. If previous responses are forgotten, the user must redo them, which is • OneKey Course Compass inconsiderate. Hence software that actually • Content Tour listens and remembers past user choices is • Companion Website a wonderful thing. Polite people remember • Help Downloading previous encounters, yet each time I open • Instructor Resource Centre Explorer it fills its preferred directory with files I don’t want to see, then returns the

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 75 cursor to me to select the directory I want time (Jenkins, 2006), e.g. if a user takes to look at, which is never the one displayed. three minutes to refocus after an interrup- Each time, Explorer acts as if it were the tion, a 1 second interruption every three first time I had used it, yet I am the only minutes can reduce productivity to zero. Mr. person it has ever known. Why can it not Clippy, Office ‘97’s paper clip assistant, had remember where I was last time, and return this problem, since as one user noted: “It me there? The answer is simply that it is wouldn’t go away when you wanted it to. impolite by design. It interrupted rudely and broke your train Such “amnesia” is a trademark of of thought.” (Pratley, 2004). Searching the impolite software. Any document process- Internet for “Mr. Clippy” gives comments ing software could automatically open the like “Die, Clippy, Die!” (Gauze, 2003), user’s last document, and put the cursor yet its Microsoft designer still wonders: where they left off, or at least give that “If you think the Assistant idea was bad, option (Raskin, 2000 p31). The user logic why exactly?” (Pratley, 2004). To answer is simple: If I close the file I am finished, simply, Mr Clippy was impolite, and in XP but if I just leave then put me back where is replaced by polite smart tags. In contrast I was last time. It is amazing that most tag clouds and reputation systems illustrate software cannot even remember its last software that reflects rather than directs user interaction. Even within an applica- online users. tion, like Outlook’s email, if one moves Selfish software, like a spoilt child, from inbox to outbox and back, it “forgets” repeatedly interrupts unnecessarily, e.g. the original inbox message, and one must Windows Update advises me when it starts, scroll back to it. as it progresses, and when it finishes its update. Its modal window interrupts what Responsive I am doing, seizes the cursor and loses my current typing. Since each time Update Current “intelligent” software tries to pre- only needs me to press OK, this is like dict user wants but cannot itself take cor- being repeatedly interrupted to pat a self- rection, e.g. Word’s auto-correct function absorbed kiddie on the head. The lesson of changes i = 1 to I = 1, but if you change Mr. Clippy, that software serves the user not it back the software ignores your act. This the other way around, seems still unlearned is software that is clever enough to give at Microsoft. corrections but not clever enough to take It is hard for selfish software to keep correction itself. However responsive appropriately quiet, e.g. Word can gener- means responding to the user’s direction ate a table of contents from a document’s not ignoring it. headings. However if one sends just the It is not responsive to interrupt inap- first chapter of a book to someone, with the propriately, as this disturbs the user’s book’s table of contents (to show its scope), train of thought. For complex work like every table of contents heading line without programming, even short interruptions a page number loudly declares: “ERROR! cause a mental “core dump”, as the user BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED”, which of drops one thing to attend to another. The course completely spoils the sample docu- interruption effect is then not just the in- ment impression (Figure 2). Even worse, terruption time, but also the user recovery this effect is not apparent until the docu-

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 76 Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 ment is received. Why could the software software seems to universally agree that not just quietly put a blank instead of a you have an error rather than we have an page number? Why must it announce its error. Brusque and often incomprehensible needs so rudely? What counts is not what error messages like the “HTTP 404 – File the software needs but what the user needs, not Found” imply that you need to fix the and in this case the user needs the software problem you have clearly created. Even to be quite. though software itself often causes errors, most software feels no obligation to even give the information it has in a useful form, applications and let alone suggest solution options for your Examples error. In contrast polite software would see all interactions as involving “we”. Indeed Blameware studies of users in human-computer tutori- als show that users respond better to “Lets A fascinating psychological study could click the Enter button” than to “Click the compare computer messages when things Enter button” (Mayer, Johnson, Shaw, & are going well to when they are not. While Sandhu, 2006). computers seem delighted to take charge when things go well, when they go wrong

Figure 2. A book table of contents as emailed to a colleague (Word)

Pryware “123 Mystreet, Hometown, zip code 246”. Polite software should not ask for unneeded Pryware is software that asks for more information as a refusal can offend. information than it needs for any reason- able purpose, e.g. an online purchase Nagware needs an address to post to but an online registration to a special interest web site If a choice repeats, to ask the same ques- does not. Figure 3 shows a special interest tion over and over, for the same reply, is site which wants people to register for no to pester or nag, like the “Are we there obvious gain and asks for not only name yet?” of children on a car trip. This forces and email but also work phone number, job the other party to again and again give the description, institution, work address and same choice reply. Many users have still skype telephone, and some sites are even not updated to Windows Vista because of more intrusive. When such unrequired fields its reputation as nagware which asks too are mandatory rather than optional people many questions. Polite people don’t ask the choose not to register, as while willing to same question over and over, yet software give out name and email they much less with no interaction memory does this, e.g. willingly divulge home phone, cell phone when reviewing email offline in Windows or home address (Foreman & Whitworth, XP, actions like using Explorer trigger a 2005), or they may record an address like “Do you want to connect?” request every

Figure 3. Pryware

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 78 Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 few minutes. No matter how often one says user. Like Peter Sellers in the film “Being “No!” it keeps asking, because the software There”, such software “likes to watch” but cannot remember its own past. Yet soft- struggles itself to relate to others. Someone ware has already solved this problem, e.g. should explain to these programmers that uploading a batch of files creates a series spying on users is not a user relationship, of “Overwrite Y/N?” questions to which e.g. Mr Clippy watched your document ac- would force the user to continuously reply tions but could not see his interactions with “Yes”, but there is a “Yes to All” meta- you, and so was oblivious to the rejection choice that remembers for the choice set. and scorn he evoked. Much software today Such choices about choices (meta-choices) is in the category of being less aware of are polite. A general meta-choice console their users than the average airport toilet. (GMCC) would give users a common place Hopefully tomorrow’s software will make to see or set all meta-choices (Whitworth, remembering user interactions its business, 2005). as its primary role is to work for people, not for itself. Pre-Emptive Strikeware Being amnesic makes the simplest of interactions difficult, e.g. Figure 4 shows Pre-emptive strikeware is software that what users must do to get a flash drive acts pre-emptively without asking on user back from Windows XP after it has been resources. An example is a zip extract put into a USB slot. Here is how this hu- product that without asking put all the man-computer interaction would appear files it extracted as icons on the desktop! if one gave something to a human helper Such software tends to be used only once. then asked for it back: Installation programs are notorious for pre- emptive acts, e.g. the Real-One Player adds User: Hi Bill, please sign this book (puts desktop icons and browser links, installs book in left hand) itself in the system tray, and can comman- Bill: Bill has found a book in his hand! deer all video and sound file associations. User: Give me the book back. Customers resent such invasions, which Bill: Do you want to safely remove the book while not illegal are impolite. An installa- in my left hand or my right hand? tion program changing your PC settings is User: I mean the book in your left hand like furniture deliverers rearranging your Bill. house because they happen to be in it. Soft- Bill: Confirm the book by pointing to it, or ware upgrades continue the tradition, e.g. the hand, or to both, and say “OK”, and I Internet Explorer upgrades that make MSN will try to give it to you. your browser home page without asking. User: (points) OK Polite software does not do this. Bill: (left hand tries to give book but the right hand is holding it) I can’t give it to Amnesic-Ware you right now, try again later User: Give me the book back! It is astounding that major software manu- Bill: Do you want to safely remove the book facturers like Microsoft gather endless in my left hand or my right hand? data on users, but seem oblivious to data on how their software interacts with the

Figure 4. Window’s eject USB interface

A human helper who acted like this delete a message (rather than say “1”) is the would be considered to have an attitude actual code the computer message system problem. If Windows can discover a USB at my work uses. Again, imagine a human is busy after the user selects it, why can’t it secretary who reported every detail before check this before the user’s selection? Is its revealing the caller just hung up. These are time more important than that of the user? not isolated cases, as inconsiderate software Most younger users of course just check is a widespread problem the USB drive light and if it is not flashing pull it out, avoiding all the above. The Wizard’s Apprentice In a similar vein, every day people all over the world listen to slowly spoken The problem presented here, of computers computer telephone messaging reports like: taking over what they don’t really under- “There are five new messages. The first stand, is embodied in the folk story of the message received at 12.15pm on Wednes- wizard who left his apprentice in charge but day the 14th of November is “” To warned him not to try to use the magic. How- save this message press 1, to forward it ever as soon as he left, thinking he knew press 3, to reply to it press 5, ... to delete it what he was doing, the apprentice started press 76. The second message received at to cast spells which soon got out of hand ….” Note that “76” as the code to press to and only the wizard’s return prevented total

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 80 Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 disaster. Likewise as software takes over right database. It handles this by clearing more it gets it wrong more. For example, all the reference generating embedded links Endnote software manages citations in in the document, which the user then must documents like this one by embedding links re-enter manually. The only way I could to a reference database. Endnote Version stop this was to uninstall Endnote from my X runs itself whenever you open the docu- work machine. Conversely when you want ment, and if it finds a problem commands to clear the links, as when trying to convert the focus from whatever you are doing to a Word/Endnote document to a publishing let you know right away (Figure 5). It uses form, there is no way to clear the Endnote square brackets for its links so assumes any codes except manually. Selfish software, square brackets in your text are for it, just like Mr Clippy, comes with everything but as selfish children assume any words spo- an off button. ken are to them. After telling it for perhaps There are many reasons why people the hundredth time to ignore brackets like should control computers, not the reverse. these [], it then closes, dropping the cursor Firstly, while computers manage vast wherever it was and leaving you to find amounts of data with ease, they handle your own way back to whatever you were context changes poorly (Whitworth, 2008), doing before it interrupted. There is no way so so-called “smart” computing invariably to turn this Endnote activation off. Opening needs a human “minder”. Secondly, com- the document on another computer, such puters are not accountable for what they as at work, means Endnote can’t find the do, as they have no “self” to bear any loss.

Figure 5. Endnote X takes charge

If society makes people accountable for ued information relevant to their purchase what computers do, as it does, people need choice, which by the previous definition is control over computer choices. Thirdly, the polite. Amazon gives customers informa- resistance of people to computer domina- tion on the books similar buyers buy, not tion is predictable. Software designers by pop-up ads but as a view option below. should not underestimate the importance Rather than a demand to buy, it is a polite of user choice. In human history freedom reminder of same-time purchases that and choice are the stuff of revolutions, and could save customer postage. Politeness a grass-roots Internet movement against is not about forcing users to buy, which software arrogance is not inconceivable. is anti-social, but about improving the The future of computers lies not in seller-customer relationship which leads becoming so clever or powerful that people to sales by giving customers choice, which are obsolete, nor in being passive human is social. Polite companies win business tools, but in contributing to a human-com- because customers given choices come puter combination that performs better back. Perhaps one reason the Google search than either people or computers alone. The engine swept all before it was that its simple runaway IT successes of the last decade white interface, without annoying flashing (cell-phones, Internet, e-mail, chat, bulletin or pop-up ads, made it pleasant to interact boards etc) all support people rather than with. Google ads sit quietly at screen right, supplant them. As computers develop this as options not demands. Yet while many on- co-participant role, politeness will be a line companies know that politeness pays, critical success factor. for others the lesson is still being learned, Today many users feel at war with their and for still others, hit-and-run rudeness software: removing things they didn’t want remains an online way of life. added, resetting changes they didn’t want Wikipedia is just one example of the changed, closing windows they didn’t want new generation of polite software. It does opened, and blocking e-mails they didn’t not act pre-emptively but responds to its want to receive, etc. User weapons in this users, it is transparent in what it does and unnecessary war, like third party blockers, supports transparency in interactions, it cleaners, filters and tweakers, whose main makes user acts like editing easy rather aim is to put users back in charge of their than throwing up obstacles and conditions, computer estate, are the most frequent ac- it remembers what each person does person- cesses at Internet download sites. If software ally, and it responds to user direction rather declares war on user choice it will not win, than trying to foist preconceived “good and if the Internet becomes a battlefield with knowledge” conditions upon participants. choice the victim then no-one will want to Social computing features like post-checks go there. The solution is to give choices not (allowing an act then checking it later), ver- take them, i.e. polite computing. sioning and rollback, tag clouds, optional registration, reviewer reputations, view The Social Computing Revolution filters and social networks illustrate how polite computing gives choices to people Many successful online traders find polite- and responds to the choices of the people. ness profitable. EBay’s customer reputation In this movement from software autocracy feedback gives users optional access to val-

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 82 Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 to software democracy, the signature char- step is to stop seeing users as little children acteristic is a new politeness. unable to exercise choice. While inexperienced users may let software take charge, A Research Question experienced users want to make their own choices. The view that “software knows The users of modern software increasingly best” is hard to justify for today’s computer- choose whether to use it or not, e.g. Presi- literate users. If once users were child-like dent Bush’s 2001 decision not to use e-mail then today they have grown up. because he did not trust it. That software can The next step is for software to stop no longer hold users hostage to its power trying to go it alone. Too clever software and users can now choose their preferred assistants acting beyond their ability are software gives a simple prediction: Polite already making core applications like software will be used more and deleted or Word like a magic world, where moved disabled less than impolite software. Polite- figures and titles suddenly jump about or ness here refers not just to the words used even disappear entirely, resized column but also to the actions taken. Experimental widths in tables reset themselves and text studies could compare polite and impolite blocks change to entirely new formats like treatment conditions, correlational stud- numbered after a delete. Increasingly only ies could compare application politeness Ctrl-Z (Undo) saves the day, as it lets the with market success, longitudinal studies user undo the too clever software’s errors. could discover if applications are becoming Software that hides its operations from the more polite over time, and ethnographic user then acts beyond its ability has misun- studies could explore how users perceive derstood its role to be to lead, when really polite and impolite software. The scope its role is to assist. Rather than using hid- of online politeness also bears investiga- den logic to predict what users want before tion, as inexperienced users may tolerate they know it themselves, why not follow impolite agents like Mr Clippy more than the user direction? For example, I repeat- experienced users, and for interactions edly change Word’s numbered paragraph mandated by law politeness may not ap- default indents to my preferences, but it ply. Individual differences like gender, age never remembers them. How hard is it to and culture may mediate user reactions to copy what the boss does? Even worse, it impolite software. If future software suc- knows better, e.g. if I ungroup and regroup cess depends on people volunteering to a figure it takes the opportunity to reset my participate, then voluntary politeness may text wrap-around options to its inappropri- be the key to that success. ate defaults, so the picture now overlaps the text again. Software should leverage user knowledge, with tool like the format Conclusion paintbrush that can copy users layouts, not try to do it all itself. Polite computing suggests that giving Polite software does not act unilat- choice is the new dimension of social erally, it transparently shows itself, it computing. If so, software designers need does not unnecessarily interrupt, it offers to change their attitude to users. The first understandable choices, it remembers past interactions and it responds to user

direction. Conversely, impolite software Forester, T., & Morrison, P. (1994). Computer acts without asking, does things secretly, Ethics London: MIT Press. interrupts unnecessarily, offers confusing Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and choices, has no recall of its past interactions the Last Man. New York: Avon Books Inc. and repeatedly goes its own way despite user corrections. It is not hard to imagine which Gauze, C. F. (2003). I See You’re Writing type of software users prefer. A future is en- an Article... March. Retrieved 2006, Carl F. visioned where politeness is a critical social Gauze, from http://www.ink19.com/issues/ requirement for software success. Polite march2003/webReviews/iSeeYoureWrit- computing could be taught in system design ingAn.html classes, along with other requirements. A Goldstein, M., Alsio, G., & Werdenhoff, J. “politeness seal” could credit applications (2002). The media equation does not always that give rather than take user choice. For apply: People are not polite to small comput- the Internet to realize its social as well as ers. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing(6), technical potential, software must become 87-96. polite as well as useful and usable. Jenkins, S. (2006). Concerning Interruptions. Computer, November, 114-116. Larkin, E. (2005). PC World, December, 28. Acknowledgment Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cy- Many thanks to Guy Kloss, Massey Univer- berspace. New York: Basic Books. sity, for useful comments and insights. Mayer, R. E., Johnson, W. L., Shaw, E., & Sand- hu, S. (2006). Constructing computer-based tutors that are socially sensitive: Politeness in References educational software. Internation Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(1), 36-42. Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Miller, C. A. (2004). Human-Computer Eti- Press. quette: Managing expectations with intentional agents. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), Cooper, A. (1999). The Inmates are Running 31-34. the Asylum- Why High Tech Products Drive us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity. USA. Nass, C. (2004). Etiquette Equality: Exhibitions and expectations of computer politeness. Com- Editor. (2002, Sunday, Feb 24, section 4). munications of the ACM, 47(4), 35-37. Technology threats to privacy. New York Times, p. 12. Pallatto, J. (2007). Monthly Microsoft Patch Hides Tricky IE 7 Download. eWeek.com Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive January 22. from http://www.eweek.com/ Dissonance: Stanford University Press. article2/0,1895,2086423,00.asp Foreman, B., & Whitworth, B. (2005). Infor- Power, R. (2000). Tangled Web: Tales of digital mation Disclosure and the Online Customer crime from the shadows of cyberspace. India- Relationship. Paper presented at the Quality, napolis: QUE Corporation. Values and Choice Workshop, Computer Hu- man Interaction (CHI). Pratley, C. (2004). Chris_Pratley’s OneNote WebLog. 2004, from http://weblogs.asp.net/

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 84 Int. J. of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1(2), 65-84, April-June 2009 chris_pratley/archive/2004/05/05/126888. Whitworth, B. (2005). Polite Computing. aspx Behaviour & Information Technology, 24(5, September, http://brianwhitworth.com/po- Raskin, J. (2000). The Humane Interface. Bos- lite05.pdf), 353 – 363. ton: Addison-Wesley. Whitworth, B. (2008). Some implications of Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness. Cam- Comparing Human and Computer Processing. bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 41st Rose, G., Khoo, H., & Straub, D. (1999). Hawaii International Conference on System Current Technological Impediments to Busi- Sciences. ness-to-Consumer Electronic Commerce. Whitworth, B., Aldo de Moor, A. and Liu, T. Communications of the AIS, I(5). (2006). Towards a Theory of Online Social Shectman, N., & Horowitz, L. M. (2003). Rights. In Z. T. R. Meersman, P. Herrero et Media inequality in conversation: How people al. (Ed.), OTM Workshops 2006, LNCS 4277 behave differently when interacting with (pp. 247 - 256). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer- computers and people. Paper presented at the Verlag CHI (Computer Human Interaction) 2003, Ft Whitworth, B., & deMoor, A. (2003). Legitimate Lauderdale, Florida. by design: Towards trusted virtual community Transparency-International. (2001). Corruption environments. Behaviour & Information Tech- Perceptions. www.transparency.org. 2002, nology, 22(1), 31-51. from www.transparency.org Whitworth, B., & Whitworth, E. (2004). Reduc- Tzeng, J. (2004). Toward a more civilized ing spam by closing the social-technical gap. design: studying the effects of computers that Computer (October), 38-45. apologize. International Journal of Human- Wright, R. (2001). Nonzero: The logic of human Computer Studies, 61(3), 319-345. destiny. New York: Vintage Books.

Brian Whitworth is a senior lecturer at Massey University (Albany), Auckland, New Zealand. He holds a BSc (mathematics), BA (psychology), MA (neuro-psychology), and an information systems PhD He has published in journals like Small Group Research, Group Decision & Negotiation, The Database for Advances in IS, Communications of the AIS, IEEE Computer, Behavior and Information Technology (BIT), Communications of the ACM and IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Topics include generating online agreement, voting before discussing, legitimate by design, spam and the socio-technical gap and the web of system performance. He with Aldo de Moor edits the Handbook of Research on Socio-Technical Design and Social Networking Systems (March 2009).