Our work on the social worlds perspective is closely tied to our previous work on mobile contexts. Here we combine the two models. While the social world features provide wider reference frameworks in social settings, the contextual attributes offer more psychological, smaller scale tools to analyze and understand the user activities.

In the following we present one possible way of locate contextual attributes witin the larger frames. Due to difference of scale (between frames and context attributes), many of the attributes can be found repeatingly under several frames. In other words, social comparison, for instance, - not to mention more detailled themes, such as, presented identity or a question of do a player has outer vs. inner motivation, is a relevant contextual "factor" in many frames, in socialization scheme, as well as when having a conversation with others about the really authentic origins of the community.

Of course, this kind of combining-work offers nothing but a skeleton, a starter to understand the social community experience. First thing to do is deeply think what are the relevant combinations for your specific case.

Figure 1. Relations between mobile contexts of use and social worlds.

• In the authenticity frame, there is five mobile context attributes. The picture shows an example of "advanced use", where still another attribute is linked to the larger frame. Preconception of place refers to attribute 4.3

Below is a cross-comparison of the social worlds perspective and the mobile context attributes. Some of the attributes can be located in several social world features. The number (#2, #3, #4, #5) after the attribute shows the amount of repetitive usage. A high number implies that this attribute is fairly general or fuzzy. A low number implies that this attribute is very specific.

Formal frameworks

1 Primary activity

• 2.1 Goal of user: semi- and final goals
• 2.2 Motivation: inner or outer
• 2.3 Habitual actions: routines (personal or professional)
• 6.1 Non-recurring vs. frequent tasks: is the task to be done only once or frequently
• 6.2 Degree of preparations (to the task)
• 6.3 Usage alone vs. in a group
• 6.4 Focused vs. divided task: one task at a time vs. many simultaneous sub-tasks, or a side task disturbs the main task

2 Activity-related technology

• 1.2 Social comparison between user and others. May be based on material (better gears) but also mental issues (better ideas, better social position etc.)

3 A specific site

• 4.1 The official use of a space: work room, corridor, not for party or sleeping
• 2.4 Personal space Physical or virtual space that user feels as psychologically safe proximity to the nearest other person or avatar. Distance needed to keep privacy.
• 4.2 Level of publicity: private, semi-public, public
• 4.3 Assumptions of a place: by memory, information, or default: the place will be nice, horrible, neutral, boring, etc.
• 4.4 Auditive environment: all that the user can hear around him or herself
• 4.5 Visual environment: all that the user can see around him or herself , including the device
• 4.6 Haptic environment: all that the user can touch around him or herself
• 4.7 Information environment: all information available at the situation of use
• 4.9 Time tables, rhythm of day: schedules
• 1.5 Presented group identity: The impression a group (people who all know each others) presents to outside
• 4.10 Travel process: Chain of important episodes and nodes during the journey. In physical traffic; changes of vehicles or travel modes, including terminals. In a web site: surf process from, say, "room" to another through the whole level of a game
• 5.2 Travel nodes: meaningful points of a (travel) process

Informal social processes

1 Organisational dynamics

• 3.1 Tensions between collaborative organisations: cooperative orgs may have slightly different practices and rules which may be problematic in practice within collaborative users from those orgs.
• 3.2 Organisation vs. individual: Organization may has different goals or even practices that would be suitable from singular perspective
• 1.3 Member and reference groups: people can be more or less formally members of groups, and they refer in positive (admiring, honouring) or negative (neglecting, disobeying, nullifying etc.) tone to reference groups
• 1.1 Maintaining group or community: general aim of keeping the wheels going on, because of synergy, or feelings of safety

1.1 Segmenting (new activities, sites, technologies, organisations and new discourses)

• 3.1 Tensions between collaborative organisations #2
• 3.2 Organisation vs. individual #2
• 1.5 Presented group identity #3
• 1.3 Member and reference groups #2

1.2 Intersecting sects

• 1.4 Presented identity: the ways user wants to present him or her self in front of others
• 1.5 Presented group identity #2

2 Authenticity

• 1.1 Maintaining group or community #2
• 1.2 Social comparison #2
• 3.2 Organisation vs. individual #3 (giving authenticity statements)
• 1.3 Member and reference groups #3
• 3.1 Tensions between collaborative organisations #3

3 Socialisation

• 1.1 Maintaining group or community #3
• 1.2 Social comparison #3
• 1.3 Member and reference groups #4
• 3.1 Tensions between collaborative organisations #4
• 1.4 Presented identity #2
• 2.1 (Goal) #2
• 3.2 Organisation vs. individual #4
• 4.7 Information environment #2
• 4.3 Assumptions of a place (metaphorically) #2
• 4.1 The official use of a space/place #2

4 Arena for communication

• 4.7 Information environment #3
• 1.5 Presented group identity #4
• 2.1 Goal #3
• 2.2 Motivation #2 (as general phenomenon)
• 4.2 Level of publicity #2

5 (Social movements and) fashion (social movements are too abstract phenomena to be applied in the context of contextual use attributes)

• 1.4 Presented identity #3
• 1.2 Social comparison #4

Epilogue

Most of the context of use attributes were originally in the Mobix-project created from a single user’s perspective. During this cross-comparison, when a single-user perspective has not been relevant, also more general phenomenal elements have been considered.

In addition to the mentioned attributes, we are of course aware that there are "basic contextual factors" such as age, ethnicity, gender, nation, region, etc. These should be taken as obvious parts of contexts, and they can and should be used with the attributes presented above. However, because they are also quite stable factors and in most cases even impossible to be changed at least by the individual user (in that moment), compared to very situational contextual attributes, they are not included in the list above.