Updated Findings from NYS Forum’s testing of Ning Collaboration Platform:
Updated Findings (Reported on December 14, 2009)
This document also contains the entire “Initial Findings” from November 9, 2009 (starting on page 2) as a reference for those not familiar with that initial report.
Since the initial findings the only significant activity on has been the signup of 17 additional members, bringing the total to 95. There has been minimal group and discussion activity since November 2, with the most recent activity dated November 23.
What Has Been Found So Far
Listed below are the main problems encountered. Specific recommendations, strategies, and tactics for resolving those problems are beyond the scope of this pilot, but the report does list general remediation actions to begin to address the problems. (Many positive reactions to use of Ning for collaboration and networking have also been found, and these are itemized more in the Initial Findings.)
The problems, remediations, and notes below are the observations of Jim Costello, who has been guiding the Ning testing for the NYS Forum in his role as government co-chair of the Webmasters’ Guild workgroup. As such, these should be considered as interim status and starting points for discussion, clarification, and consensus from the entire Forum Social Media team led by the Emerging Technologies workgroup.
- Problem: The blocking of social networking sites (including Ning) by many state agencies is a major impediment to effective use of these sites on a statewide, cross-agency basis. Since there are clearly articulated and well defined reasons for this blocking (security and governance), it may be of equal concern that many agencies have little or no blocks on these social networking sites.
Remediation: We need to identify and address the specific security, governance, and other concerns from a statewide, cross-agency perspective and develop guidelines and policies that can be applied for all.
Notes: The firewall blocking that we’ve found with Ning does and will apply to all the other similar social networking / collaboration platforms (such as groupsite, ideascale, uservoice, socialtext, etc.) If we wish to deploy these platforms on a broad basis, it must be resolved; otherwise, it can’t be done fairly and effectively. Some of the main security issues (opening a wide hole in internet filtering software, access to otherwise blocked access such as webmail and email accounts, third-party software with potentially malicious code) are outlined in one of the discussion threads on - Problem: In general, social networking platforms have some accessibility issues due in some part to the technologies employed. One glaring problem with Ning was that the initial registration page used CAPTCHA for the form submission (whereby you type in the word you see in the box above), but without the audio option, which makes it impossible for sight-impaired user to register.
Remediation: We need to evaluate any platform (Ning or otherwise) for accessibility compliance.
Notes: We contacted Ning about CAPTCHAand they said they were working on an audio CAPTCHA and would help anyone needing help to register via their Help desk. Also, that they took issues of accessibility seriously. - Problem: The terms of service agreement with Ning has not been reviewed by any authoritative party.
Remediation: Terms of service would need to be resolved, preferably on a statewide basis. GSA has done this with many providers at a federal level. - Problem: Google ads appear on the free version of Ning (which we have been piloting). Ads are common to most of the free or cheaper versions of these social networking platforms. You can remove them for a price ($24.95 per month for Ning).
Remediation: Determination needs to be made at a statewide level if these Google ads are acceptable in this context or not. - Problem: Ning (like most, if not all, of these platforms) is a hosted service, which raises security, data ownership, longevity issues.
Remediation: See Number 1 previously. - Problem: The Ning GUI (screen) is not as good as the GUI’s of similar platforms (such as Groupsite). The Ning page has too many tabs (many of them unused) and its formatting of groups and discussions is not as easy to read as most similar platforms.
Remediation: Either choose to go with a different platform such as which has a much simpler and better interface or customize Ning as much as possible to match the purpose and goals of the Forum’s use of the platform (i.e., for groups and discussions, rather than blogs and chat.). - Problem: Ning offers features that match the Forum’s usage purpose and others that are irrelevant to that purpose. There are also other uses that Ning does not offer such as wikis and voting.
Remediation: This gets back to the importance of the Forum’s purpose statement for social networking and collaboration. We may want a menu of different tools to match the components of that purpose: a separate wiki platform, a group voting tool such as IdeaScale or UserVoice.
Notes: Ning is free with no restrictions, but does offer premium services for a monthly fee. Groupsite also has a free version for unlimited users, but only 5 subgroups and 250MB storage. However it matches the Forum’s purpose for collaboration much closer with a simpler “communication, share, network” interface. It’s formatted better for discussions and file sharing. UserVoice and IdeaScale add the group voting feature (thumbs-up, thumbs-down), both also offering free and fee versions. NYS CIO uses IdeaScale on its website. Socialtext offers social networking, collaborative blogs, wikis in a free version for fewer than 50 users, but then it gets pricey ($6 per user per month). Also offers an onsite appliance installation as well as a hosted platform. All the others are hosted platforms.
Conclusions
We probably don’t need to test the Ning platform any further in regard to the pilot. We have probably found out as much as we will find out at this stage. Our next step would be to tackle the problems listed above (and any others that surface) in preparation for possible adoption and implementation of Ning or other tools.
In the meantime, we can continue to use Ning as desired if it serves an interim purpose.
Initial Findings (Reported on November 9, 2009)
The collaboration platform was officially rolled out as a test/evaluation site for NYS Forum members in October 2, 2009 with an introductory email sent to the Webmasters’ Guild listserv (387 recipients) and co-chairs of some other Forum workgroups (such as Accessibility). This was followed up on October 13 with an email from the Emerging Technologies workgroup to all the other workgroup co-chairs inviting them to joinNing as part of the Forum’s evaluation under the guidance of the Emerging Technologies workgroup.
The tables on the following pages summarize some initial findings from the first month of use.
Caution: As with any evaluation, numbers alone don’t tell the whole tale. With social media, especially in a trial period, it’s unclear how to accurately interpret the numbers. However, Jakob Nielssen, a leading authority on Usability, offers some guidance. The following is taken from his web page:
where he says that
“All large-scale, multi-user communities and online social networks that rely on users to contribute content or build services share one property: most users don't participate very much. Often, they simply lurk in the background.
User participation often more or less follows a 90-9-1 rule:
- 90% of users are lurkers (i.e., read or observe, but don't contribute).
- 9% of users contribute from time to time, but other priorities dominate their time.
- 1% of users participate a lot and account for most contributions: it can seem as if they don't have lives because they often post just minutes after whatever event they're commenting on occurs.”
Numbers and Statistics
Test Time Period / 10/02/2009 – 11/02/2009Participants
formed @ 18 months ago has 21,261 members / 78 registered members:
•44 from Webmasters’ Guild listserv (out of 387 on listserv);
•13 active members (commenting, starting groups/discussions)
•25 have uploaded photos of themselves for profile
•6 of the 11 Forum Workgroups have at least 1 co-chair registered:
- REGISTERED: Accessibility, IT Corporate Roundtable, Emerging Technologies, Project Management, Security, Webmasters’ Guild
- NOT REGISTERED:Business Continuity, IT Greening, Matrix, IT Procurement, Small/Medium/Local
Groups
(groups are formed around interests or topics; the Forum could conceivably have one group for each Forum Workgroup and additional groups within these groups; has 587 groups. / 4 groups formed:
•Emerging Technologies
•PM COP
•PM Steering Committee
•PM Roundtable
Discussions
(this seems to be the main feature of Ning – collaborative, threaded discussions; has 1,088 discussions. / 4 started at top level (some others also started within groups):
•Web Analytics and Search Engine Optimization: Questions and Issues (no activity)
•Topics for 2009-2010 Monthly Meetings: (3 comments)
•Findings on Our Evaluation of NYSForumWebGuild (21 comments)
•Developing a Purpose Statement for NYS Forum’s Own Use of Web 2.0 Social Networking Tools (4 comments)
Agency Access / 6 agencies have firewall blocks on Ning (identified by Websense as a social networking site) that block all access or provide limited text-only access:
•DMV, OTDA, DOH, OSC, DOS, Civil Service
Members have signed on from at least 24 different agencies (including some of those listed above, by overriding the firewall or getting exemptions):
•DMV, SED, SUNYORANGE, DOL, OFA, DEC, OSCIC, DCJS, PAROLE, OFT, EMPIRE, DHCR, OSC, OPDV, TAX, MHRIC, SUNY, DOT, TROOPERS, OMR, DOH, ORPS, DEC, DOS
Events / 2 events have been posted on the calendar
Blogs / 1 Blog has been created, “Can We Build a Web 2.0 Community at the NYS Forum?” with 1 comment
Shared Workspace / 1 document was uploaded to the Shared Workspace, but no activity
Feedback and Observations
Pros / Cons•Good overall
•Good on capturing and threading discussions
•Good on forums and blogs
•Easy to use
•Like ability to have discussions
•Like ability to upload documents
•Good for social networking (person-to-person contact beyond known groups)
•Good for sharing information at a central site without needing webmaster to post
•Worked with Firefox 3, IE 7, IE 8 / •No singleton session pattern, multiple sessions allowed under one user/pw
•Prompted to install Adobe Flash player in IE 8 (violates agency policy)
•IE 7 pops us script error windows
•Lack of formatting for edit/display. No bullet list feature for example. Can’t collapse, re-sort threaded discussions.
•No wiki
•Feature for sending an invitation did not work correctly for one user
•Obvious accessibility issues with:
- the Captcha function on registration, not having an audio option – makes it nearly impossible for sight-impaired to register.
- Turning off javascript disables some key functionality such as replying to comments
•Security concerns:
- Ning falls under umbrella of social networking, like Facebook and MySpace, which provide access to all sorts of subject matter (some questionable and illegal?)
- Controlling access to just subdomains (such as is difficult because of need to access other domains for registration
- Provides possible access to other blocked access areas such as webmail
- Support 3rd party software, which may contain malicious code
- Privacy concerns with email addresses and content
Other Observations
•In evaluating the Ning tool, Forum should also look to reporting out on best practices, i.e., which tools to use and how to use them
•Test for and ensure 508 Accessibility with any social networking tool used by Forum
•In terms of collaboration, also need non-Ning tools such as virtual meeting software and virtual conferencing
•To encourage use among Webmasters’ Guild members, perhaps restrict ability to listserv only to co-chairs and direct members to Ning for information.
•Need to build a community of active members and that may require reaching a critical mass of resources and interactions on the Ning site to make it the place to go.
H:\WebGuild\SocialMediaInitiative\Updated Findings from NYS Forum Ning.doc1