“We definitely need an audience”: experiences of Twitter, Twitter networks and tweet content in adults with severe communication disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant tweet data.

Feature of tweet data	P1	P2	P3	P4	P5	Overall
Ratio of Twitter followers to followed	1.9:1	1.1:1	0.5:1	0.5:1	n/a	–
Number of tweets collected	177	222	2176	71	0	2646
Number of retweets (% of total tweets	0 (0%)	52 (23.4%)	87 (3.9%)	20 (28.2%)	n/a	149 (5.6%)
Number of tweets containing links (% of total tweets)	1 (0.6%)	74 (33.3%)	729 (33.5%)	14 (19.7%)	n/a	818 (30.9%)
Number of retweets containing links (% of retweets)	n/a	24 (45%)	28 (32%)	0 (0%)	n/a	–
Number of links to photo sharing app or site  (% of total links tweeted/% of total tweets)	0	4 (5.4%; 1.8%)	230 (31.5%; 10.5%)	3 (21.4%; 4.2%)		237 (28.9%; 8.9%)
Number of links to video sharing app or site  (% of total links tweeted/% of total tweets)	0	1 (1.3%; 0.4%)	19 (2.6%; 0.9%)	3 (21.4%; 4.2%)		23 (2.8%; 0.8%)

Figure 1. P1 Gephi visualisation. Key: P1 = participant 1 node; P1U = undirected tweets from the participant's handle to all followers (not mentioning any other profiles).

Figure 2. P2 Gephi visualisation. Key: P2 = participant 2 node; P2U = undirected tweets from the participant's handle to all followers (not mentioning any other profiles).

Figure 3. P2 Gephi visualisation. Key: P3 = participant 3 node; P3U = undirected tweets from the participant's handle to all followers (not mentioning any other profiles).

Figure 4. P4 Gephi visualisation. Key: P4 = participant 4 node; P4U = undirected tweets from the participant's handle to all followers (not mentioning any other profiles).

Figure 5. All participants Gephi visualisation. Key: P1 = participant 1; P2 = participant 2; P3 = participant 3; P4 = participant 4; P5 = participant 5.

Figure 6. Individual participant's micro-, meso- and macro-layers of tweets. Key: P1 = participant 1; P2 = participant 2; P3 = participant 3; P4 = participant 4; P5 = participant 5. Note: Percentages are of the individual's total tweets, so that each individual adds up to 100% and categories are mutually exclusive.

Table 2. Structural layers of tweets in the sample: macro-, meso- and micro-layers.

	Macro		Meso		Micro		Totals
P1	32	18%	137	77%	8	5%	177
P2	33	15%	132	59%	57	26%	222
P3	343	16%	1178	54%	655	30%	2176
P4	6	8%	60	85%	5	7%	71
	414		1507		725		2646

Figure 7. Individual participant percentage of content of tweets. Key: P1 = participant 1; P2 = participant 2; P3 = participant 3; P4 = participant 4; P5 = participant 5. Note: Percentages are of the individual's total tweets, so that each individual adds up to 100% and categories are mutually exclusive.

Table 3. Group results of tweets by content.

	Conversational	News	Pass Along	Social Presence	Broadcast
P1	81.9%	0.6%	0.6%	2.8%	14.1%	100.0%
P2	23.0%	0.0%	43.7%	0.0%	33.3%	100.0%
P3	24.5%	1.8%	36.0%	1.6%	36.0%	100.0%
P4	50.7%	0.0%	39.4%	0.0%	9.9%	100.0%
Mean	28.9%	1.5%	34.4%	1.5%	33.6%	100.0%

Figure 8. Normalized results of tweet content for four active users. Key: P1 = participant 1; P2 = participant 2; P3 = participant 3; P4 = participant 4; P5 = participant 5.