FriendGroupVR: Design Concepts Using Virtual Reality to Organize Social Network Friends

  • Frederic RaberEmail author
  • Christopher SchommerEmail author
  • Antonio Krüger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11748)


Creating friend lists offers social network users the ability to select a fine-grained audience for their posts, thereby reducing the amount of unwanted disclosures. However, research has shown that the user burden involved in creating and managing friend lists leads to the fact that this functionality is rarely used, despite its advantages. In this paper, we propose two design concepts using virtual reality to allow the user to create and organize her friend lists. Whereas the first “pragmatic” concept is targeted towards usability and practicability using a metaphor similar to card sorting, the second “playful” concept has the goal to achieve a high user experience score by offering a VR game to sort and organize the friends. In a lab study, we compared the two concepts with the Facebook interface in terms of usability, user experience and error rate (like missing friends in a group or friends placed in the wrong group). We were able to show that both designs significantly outperform the Facebook interface in both usability and user experience. The playful interface is experienced as more interesting and stimulating than its pragmatic counterpart, at the cost of an increased error rate.



This work was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) via the collaborative research center “Methods and Tools for Understanding and Controlling Privacy” (SFB 1223), project A7.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (m4v 23687 KB)


  1. 1.
    Bernstein, M.S., Bakshy, E., Burke, M., Karrer, B.: Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2013, pp. 21–30. ACM, New York (2013).
  2. 2.
    Blondel, V.D., Guillaume, J.L., Lambiotte, R., Lefebvre, E.: Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech: Theory Exp. 2008(10), P10008 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189 (1986) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bussolon, S., Russi, B., Missier, F.D.: Online card sorting: as good as the paper version. In: Proceedings of the 13th Eurpoean Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: Trust and Control in Complex Socio-technical Systems, ECCE 2006, pp. 113–114. ACM, New York (2006).
  5. 5.
    Chaparro, B.S., Hinkle, V.D., Riley, S.K.: The usability of computerized card sorting: a comparison of three applications by researchers and end users. J. Usability Stud. 4(1), 31–48 (2008). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colligan, L., Potts, H.W., Finn, C.T., Sinkin, R.A.: Cognitive workload changes for nurses transitioning from a legacy system with paper documentation to a commercial electronic health record. Int. J. Med. Inf. 84(7), 469–476 (2015). Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Wolf, R., Gao, B., Berendt, B., Pierson, J.: The promise of audience transparency. Exploring users’ perceptions and behaviors towards visualizations of networked audiences on facebook. Telematics Inf. 32(4), 890–908 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gross, R., Acquisti, A.: Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, WPES 2005, pp. 71–80. ACM, New York(2005).
  9. 9.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (eds.) Human Mental Workload, Advances in Psychology, vol. 52, pp. 139–183. North-Holland (1988). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., Koller, F.: Attrakdiff: Ein fragebogen zur messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer qualitaet. In: Szwillus, G., Ziegler, J. (eds.) Mensch Computer 2003: Interaktion in Bewegung. BGCACM, vol. 57, pp. 187–196. B. G. Teubner, Stuttgart (2003). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hubbell, B., et al.: Understanding social and behavioral drivers and impacts of air quality sensor use. Sci. Total Environ. 621, 886–894 (2017). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Javed, Y., Shehab, M.: How do facebookers use friendlists. In: 2012 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pp. 343–347. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jerald, J.: The VR Book: Human-Centered Design for Virtual Reality. Association for Computing Machinery and Morgan & Claypool, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kairam, S., Brzozowski, M.J., Huffaker, D., Chi, E.H.: Talking in circles: selective sharing in google+. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2012), pp. 1065–1074. New York (2012).
  15. 15.
    Karr-Wisniewski, P., Wilson, D., Richter-Lipford, H.: A new social order: mechanisms for social network site boundary regulation. In: Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kelley, P.G., Brewer, R., Mayer, Y., Cranor, L.F., Sadeh, N.: An investigation into Facebook friend grouping. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6948, pp. 216–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, K.C., Chung, N.: Empirical analysis of consumer reaction to the virtual reality shopping mall. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24(1), 88–104 (2008). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu, Y., Mondal, M., Viswanath, B., Mondal, M., Gummadi, K.P., Mislove, A.: Simplifying friendlist management. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-First International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2012), Lyon, France, April 2012Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mazzia, A., LeFevre, K., Adar, E.: The PViz comprehension tool for social network privacy settings. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2012, pp. 13:1–13:12. ACM, New York (2012).
  20. 20.
    Mondal, M., Liu, Y., Viswanath, B., Gummadi, K.P., Mislove, A.: Understanding and specifying social access control lists. In: Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), vol. 11 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nawaz, A.: A comparison of card-sorting analysis methods. In: Proceedings of the 10th Asia Pacific Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, APCHI 2012, vol. 2, pp. 583–592. Association for Computing Machinery, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raber, F., Krüger, A.: Deriving privacy settings for location sharing: are context factors always the best choice? In: 2018 IEEE Symposium on Privacy-Aware Computing (PAC), pp. 86–94, September 2018.
  23. 23.
    Raber, F., Kosmalla, F., Krueger, A.: Fine-grained privacy setting prediction using a privacy attitude questionnaire and machine learning. In: Bernhaupt, R., Dalvi, G., Joshi, A., K. Balkrishan, D., O’Neill, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10516, pp. 445–449. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raber, F., Krueger, A.: Towards understanding the influence of personality on mobile app permission settings. In: Bernhaupt, R., Dalvi, G., Joshi, A., K. Balkrishan, D., O’Neill, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10516, pp. 62–82. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raber, F., Ziemann, D., Krüger, A.: The “retailio” privacy wizard: assisting users with privacy settings for intelligent retail stores. In: Weir, C., Mazurek, M. (eds.) 3rd European Workshop on Usable Security. EuroUSEC European Workshop on Usable Security (EuroUSEC-18), 23 April, London, UCL, UK. Internet Society (2018)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rugg, G., McGeorge, P.: The sorting techniques: a tutorial paper on card sorts, picture sorts and item sorts. Expert Syst. 14(2), 80–93 (1997). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Slater, M.: Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 364, 3549–3557 (2009). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Speicher, M., Hell, P., Daiber, F., Simeone, A., Krüger, A.: A virtual reality shopping experience using the apartment metaphor. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, AVI 2018, pp. 17:1–17:9. ACM, New York (2018).
  29. 29.
    Watson, J., Besmer, A., Lipford, H.R.: +your circles: sharing behavior on Google+. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS 2012, pp. 12:1–12:9. ACM, New York (2012).
  30. 30.
    Wisniewski, P., Lipford, H., Wilson, D.: Fighting for my space: coping mechanisms for SNS boundary regulation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 609–618. ACM (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DFKI Saarland Informatics CampusSaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.Saarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations