An examination of social tagging interface features and functionalities. An analytical comparison
| Date | 25 September 2009 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520911001909 |
| Published date | 25 September 2009 |
| Pages | 901-919 |
| Author | Ali Shiri |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
An examination of social tagging
interface features and
functionalities
An analytical comparison
Ali Shiri
School of Library and Information Studies, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report on a comparative and analytical examination of ten
social tagging systems’ interfaces and their features and functionalities. The specific objective of the
study was to examine the ways in which the user interfaces of social tagging systems encourage and
provide users with features to assign, explore, browse and make use of tags during their interaction
with social tagging sites.
Design/methodology/approach – The user interface features and functionalities of ten social
tagging sites (six social bookmarking and four social media sharing sites) are examined. A
categorisation of tag-related features is developed for analysis. The sites are selected based on such
criteria as popularity, variety of site type, and inclusion of tagging features and content type.
Findings – The findings of this studyshow that there is an emerging interface design paradigm with
respect to social tagging sites that reflects a particular focus on exploratory search and browsing
features and services. Some of the key areas discussed are: user tagging features; exploratory and tag
browsing features; and interface layout.
Practical implications – The findings of this study of the user interface features of social tagging
sites provide a comprehensive picture of the possible and potential features that can be incorporated
into new social tagging systems. Based on the evidence found in the examined social tagging
interfaces, recommendations are made on the design of tag posting, tag use, tag browsing, tag lists and
tag clouds. The design recommendations offer ideas for the development of more sophisticated
exploratory and interactive user interfaces for social tagging systems.
Originality/value – This is the first paper that reports on a comparative and exploratory
examination of social tagging user interface features and functionalities.
Keywords Communicationtechnologies, Social networks,User interfaces, Internet
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Social tagging is one of several emerging technologies and associated activities that
constitute Web 2.0, a term coined by O’Reilly and Battelle and discussed at O’Reilly’s
Web 2.0 conference in 2004 (Notess, 2006). It is variously defined as an “emerging
social environment that uses various tools to create, aggregate, and share dynamic
content in ways that are more creative and interactive than transactions previously
conducted on the Internet” (Connor, 2007, p. 1); as “the most recent incar nation of the
World Wide Web which allows users to create, change, and publish dynamic web
content using digital tools” (Stephens, 2006, p. 8); and more simply as “the tenden cy to
let users create...net content” (Nielsen, 2006, p. 15). This variety of definitions shows
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm
An examination
of social tagging
901
Refereed article received
10 October 2008
Approved for publication
20 March 2009
Online Information Review
Vol. 33 No. 5, 2009
pp. 901-919
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1468-4527
DOI 10.1108/14684520911001909
the multifaceted nature of the social web and its new applications that encourage
socialisation and collaborative ways of creating and sharing content.
That the new social environment of Web 2.0 now constitutes the most popular use
of the internet (Gefter, 2006) is clearly evidenced by the traffic patterns of sites such as
MySpace and Facebook, which have been described as “highly popular among
university students” (Greenwell and Kraemer, 2006) and 15-to-25-year-olds (O’Leary,
2006). Other social networking sites, such as Flickr, BubbleShare and Nexopia, are also
extremely popular among members of this demographic and are fuelling both the pace
of Web 2.0 development in general and its application in public institutions such as
libraries (see Evans, 2006; Fitzpatrick, 2006; Goldberg, 2006; Greenwell and Kraemer,
2006; Harder, 2006; Harris, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c; Jenkins, 2006; Krug and Reichman,
2006; Lackie, 2006; Leech, 2006; Mathews, 2006). In fact, the relatively recent notion of
Web 2.0 has already been applied to library environments to such an extent that two
new terms, “Library 2.0” and “School 2.0”, have emerged, the latter boldly touted by at
least one author as “the means by which the promise of the digital revolution for
schools will be achieved” (Harris, 2006c, p. 52). Library 2.0, Connor (2007, p.2) argues,
will have “profound implications for how librarians will work, collaborate, and deliver
content” through the application of interactive tools, including social tagging.
Social tagging, sometimes referred to as social bookmarking, is defined variously as
the classification of resources “by the use of informally assigned, user-defined
keywords or tags” (Barsky and Purdon, 2006, p. 66) and the classification of resources
“using free-text tags, unconstrained and arbitrary values” (Tonkin, 2006). It emerged in
popular practice around 2003, at the same time as social networking websites, and it
constitutes an important part of the interactive, democratic nature of Web 2.0 in that it
places the responsibility for the classification of web resources squarely in the hands of
the users. Tonkin (2006, online) proposes a two-part taxonomy of social tagging
systems: “‘broad,’ meaning that many different users can tag a single resource , or
‘narrow,’ meaning that a resource is tagged by only one or a few users”. In addition to
social bookmarking, quasi-synonyms for social tagging include: collaborative tagging,
folksonomy, folk categorisation, communal categorisation, ethnoclassification, mob
indexing and free-text tagging.
Following a trend analysis study of social tagging systems, Shiri (2007) suggested
that the user interface features of social tagging systems warrant research. There is a
growing interest and enthusiasm in designing and developing socially enhanced
systems and services on the web and the number of social tagging sites is increasing
rapidly. These services offer an interesting opportunity for research into knowledge
organisation and next-generation user interfaces. The particular focus of this paper is
on the ways in which features and functionalities associated with tags have been
designed.
The overarching objective of the research reported here was to explore, identify and
categorise the interface features and functionalities of social tagging sites that allow
users to create, contribute, explore and interact with content, specifically tags. The
specific research questions were:
RQ1. What tag-related features are implemented in social tagging sites?
RQ2. How are these features integrated and displayed in the user interface?
RQ3. Are there specific tagging features related to a particular type of content?
OIR
33,5
902
To continue reading
Request your trial