International Journal for Infonomics (IJI), Volume 3, Issue 4, December 2010 A Discussion on Social Software: Concept, Building Blocks and Challenges Roberto Pereira M. Cecilia C. Baranauskas Sergio R. P. da Silva Institute of Computing Institute of Computing Department of Informatics University of Campinas University of Campinas State University of Maringá Abstract interaction are extended to issues related to human- computer-human interaction in social situations. The possibility of developing more interactive and Despite the popularity and the growing in the innovative applications led to an explosion in the number of users of the social software, just a small amount of systems available on the web in which fraction of systems is really successful. To Webb [2], users interact with each other and have a primary the main particularity of social software is in the role as producers of content — the so-called social design process, because human factors and group software. However, despite their popularity, few of dynamics introduce design difficulties that are not these systems keep an effective participation of users, obvious without considering the human psychology promoting a continuous and productive interaction. and nature. Moreover, as Silva and Pereira [3] argue, This paper examines the concept of social software due to the recent emergence and popularization of and analyzes the social software honeycomb, a social software it is still necessary to understand the framework to help in understanding this kind of impacts that this new range of applications cause, system. Based on the analysis of an inclusive social both in social and technological aspects. Likewise, it network and on literature review, we revisit that is necessary to study the new challenges raised by framework. We argue that values should be this kind of interactive software; due its social considered in the context of social software and the aspects, its requirements are constantly changing, framework should be extended and theoretically because the quantity and variety of users are very grounded in order to address the several challenges different from those found in conventional software. imposed by the “social”. Indeed, despite the lack of formal metrics to determine whether a social software has succeeded 1. Introduction or not, the number of users and their level of activities offer significant evidences. Without users New applications allowing mass collaboration, there will be no information or other kind of communication and interactivity were developed knowledge to be analyzed. Thus, being completely with the Web 2.0 advent, encouraging the creation of dependent on their users, the success of social technologies such as social networks, social search, software heavily depends on how users feel when social categorization (folksonomies), among others using them, on their interface features and on their [1]. These technologies, developed for supporting a interaction mechanisms. Users need to feel “social web”, are called social software, and are confident, guided, rewarded and motivated to use the based on applications that enable mass interaction, application because, otherwise, there is no reason for communication and interaction. using such systems to produce or organize Applications such as YouTube, Second Life, information or to interact with each other. Delicious, Twitter, Flickr, Facebook, among others, Although the concept of social software is invite millions of users to communicate, interact, relatively new, discussions around the design of create, share and organize information. These collaborative systems have received attention from systems show the “power of the collective”, the academy since more than two decades. In Winograd opportunities and knowledge that can be generated and Flores [4], the authors discuss the impact of through collaborative work and mass interaction. computer systems on the social relations of their According to Webb [2], the goal of social software is users, emphasizing that this impact must be taken to deal with groups, with ordinary interaction among into account when designing a system. Ackerman [5] people. This scenario is a bit different from the says that at the stage of design, the biggest challenge groupwork, which usually takes place in a formal is social instead of technological. The author setting; here, the interaction occurs in an emphasizes that systems do not fully meet the unprecedented scale and intensity, leading to a requirements of sharing information, the social situation in which issues related to human-computer policy of groups, responsibilities, among others, because we do not have knowledge on how to Copyright © 2010, Infonomics Society 382 International Journal for Infonomics (IJI), Volume 3, Issue 4, December 2010 develop systems that fully support the social world. 2. Social Software: Literature Review These statements are also valid for the social software design process, because it seems that the The term “social software” is used in many differences between both concepts of social software different contexts, and different technologies are and collaborative systems (in their more general underlying it. Inspired by Lazar and Preece’s [9] form) are in the number and diversity of users, in the discussion on online communities, we can say that amount of information created and shared by them, social software is usually a subjective matter: it is and in the possibilities users have of interacting with easy to understand and recognize, but it is unstable to each other and with the system. define and even more complicated to measure. In an attempt to build a functional framework for One of the first definitions for the term (and one understanding the nature and structure of social of the most broadly discussed) was given by Shirkly software, Smith [6] proposed a framework he named [10] as “software that supports group interaction”. “social software honeycomb” to illustrate a list of Klamma et al. [11] in the context of educational seven elements that compose a functional definition technologies assume, generally, social software as of it. Smith’s framework is grounded on the “tools and environments that support activities in evolution of a discussion informally developed digital social networks”, while Smith [12], presents it among professionals and researches who were as “software that allows people to connect through a interested in understanding the new dynamics, computer-mediated communication”. challenges, opportunities and implications of the so- In a more detailed view, Chatti et al. [13] define called social software. Although a good starting social software as tools for augmenting human social point for analysis, the framework need further and collaborative abilities and as a medium for improvements and theoretically grounded facilitating social connection and information discussions to help in understanding, designing and interchange. Kolko et al. [14] go beyond web evaluating social software. applications and consider mobile devices as social This paper revisits some definitions and devices, “in the degree to which they mediate social discusses the social software concept. It also sheds relationships, social networks and manage the light on Smith’s social software honeycomb [6], circulation of culture that sustains such networks”. discussing it, pointing out its limitations, suggesting Many authors argue that social software is a improvements and theories for grounding it. These poorly defined concept [11, 12, 14]. In part, it is theories, such as Organizational Semiotics [7], help because technologies, tools and social concepts are in understanding and dealing with the social world. mixed and not clearly explained. Several systems To analyze the framework, we apply it to an such as Wikipedia, Facebook, Youtube and MySpace inclusive social network: Vila na Rede [8]. As a are broadly accepted as social software. In the same result, we show aspects, such as collaboration and way, Wikis, Blogs and Social Networks are also emotion, which the framework is not able to address. included in this category. Wikipedia is a Wiki, but is Additionally, trough a literature review, we identify it considered social software because it uses Wiki additional elements that, according to researchers technology or because of the way it is used? and practitioners, afford the social aspect of social Therefore, we can notice that the classification software and can be determinant of their success. criteria vary not only according to the technologies The empiric analysis of the Vila na Rede system and used and the features implemented, but also with the literature review provide the basis of a new set of pragmatic aspects of usefulness and applicability. elements — which we call the social software Other point commonly mentioned [7, 15, 16] is building blocks. that the Internet has always comprised a network of The paper is organized as follows: section 2 individuals connected through social technologies. discusses several definitions literature brings to the Some of them, such as e-mail, chats and forums are term “social software” to clarify the meanings behind long ago available. However, McLoughlin and Lee it, and describes the framework from its origin to its [15] argue that “current social software tools not conception as the social software honeycomb; only support social interaction, feedback, section 3 presents the Vila na Rede system and conversation and networking”, but they also have presents