Program for Online Deliberation (POD) Design notes (cobbled together from email/POD discussion, notebook scribbles, and face-to-face meetings between Todd Davies and Brendan O' Connor, 8/6/03) Contents: 1.Discussion viewer (from email discussion 7/4-7/5/03) 2.Documents box and viewer (from notebook, meetings, and email exchange 7/9-7/11/03 and later) 3.Group home page (from meeting 8/6/03) *1. Discussion viewer (from email discussion)* Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:26:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Davies To: brendano@stanford Subject: index display/thread reading options, + embedding Brendan, I've been thinking about how we display indexes and messages, and I agree with you that it would be very nice to have the option of reading an entire thread with one click. A good way to do this might be just to allow two ways of viewing each thread in the header pane: collapsed (first header only with number of messages in parentheses) and expanded (all headers with indentations). Forte Free Agent, the Usenet reader I like, does something like this for header display, but what it doesn't do is what Google Groups does - let you see all messages in a thread from a collapsed index. Here's what I'm thinking the options could look like at the top of the header pane: view by: thread date author location (collapse) The parenthetical option at the end is a toggle for collapse/expand, and would switch to the opposite of the mode you are in (default=expanded). As displayed, the mode is expanded and you would see all headers indented in thread view, all headers linearly in date view, all headers indented (by thread within an author's posts) in author view, and all headers indented (by thread within location) in location view. In collapsed mode, you would see one link for each thread in each view, with "(x messages)" next to the link. Clicking on a link would display all x messages linearly in the message pane, and mark all of them as read. A link would be color-highlighted if any *new* messages had been posted since the x messages had either been viewed in expanded mode or clicked on in collapsed mode. (In expanded mode, a header would be highlighted if that message had been marked read.) The "links" in collapsed mode would vary depending on the view: top header (e.g. "14 I had meant to say...Peter Shane (3 messages)" in thread view; date only (e.g. "Sunday, July 6, 2003 (15 messages)" in date view; author-thread-top header in author view (e.g. "75 Brendan O'Connor: Are you kidding me? (7 follow-ups)") (all follow-ups would be those by the same author); and location-thread-top header in location view (e.g. "2.15 I can live with this...Todd Davies (2 messages)"). I hope this is clear enough. I'm trying to make the right choices while giving as many useful options as possible, which I think people will want us to do. On another issue, I've gone back to thinking we can just let people attach documents at arbitrary levels of embedding instead of limiting it to one level. People may want to attach a picture to an embedded document, for example. This should all work fine - we can give people hints on how to do it and they can decide for themselves whether to create chains of attachment (e.g. document 1.2.1.1.1) for revisions or have all attached documents "report directly" to the *focal document*. The concept of a focal document is that it gets designated as such and can then be automatically updated depending on the outcome of a vote. Any document could be so designated, including an attached one. I'm still working on this. I'm trying to make it so that there is a distinction between the document we are producing and others we use along the way as proposed variations or supplementary material. For example, a focal document could be an announcement like "The staff committee has offered the position of groundskeeper to Sam Spade", and approving it would result in a set of actions chosen as options by the committee, e.g. place an announcement in the whole group's announcements list and mark the document as approved on a certain date, by a certain vote etc. etc. Have a good 4th. Todd Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:28:50 -0700 (PDT) From: "Brendan O'Connor" To: Todd Davies Subject: Re: index display/thread reading options, + embedding Sounds like a good idea, as for the collapsed/expanded modes. I'm still worried about complexity -- maybe we could hide it behind a beginner/expert UI distinction? panFora has an interesting approach -- http://cluster3.stanford.edu/withinc/newforum/cgi-bin/Forum.cgi?fid=newforum&tid=a_topic_area+2C_top-down_made+21/here+27s_another_topic&mid=1.0 by default they have a collapsed view in the msglist pane, with a full body thread view in the msg pane. But there's a [+] icon by each thread that has replies... you click on that [+] to expand it to show all the headers as a tree. But when you click on it, it prompts you to switch over to advaned UI mode, which introduces a bunch of new options elsewhere in the interface. I think it's a good, gentle way to transition to more complex views -- in our case, when you could collapse/expand you could get prompted to switch over to more advanced views, enabling more complex things like sort-by-date/author and the like. Should we allow expansion/collapse per thread -- with those [+] icons? Your idea, if I understand it right, says that the msg pane changes based on whether expanded mode is chosen.... let me get this straight: [Todd's idea] pane Expanded mode ---- Collapsed Mode msglist See all headers See just top-of-thread headers msg body See 1 msg @ a time See bodies of whole thread If we allow toggling per-thread, it would be bad to change the functionality of the msgbody pane for each thread -- too confusing. Panfora hits a middle ground by always showing the full body thread in the msgpane, but highlights the one you've selected from the msglist. [Panfora's way] pane Expanded thread ---- Collapsed thread msglist See all headers See just top-of-thread header msg body See all msgs, highlight the selected one ------- I'm not so sure about changing what the headers look like based on the sort - too confusing? Maybe I misunderstand you... are you saying the the headers look the same, but you linkify a different part of the header depending on the sort? I still have to read over / think about the attachment stuff. Brendan Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:34:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Brendan O'Connor" To: Todd Davies Subject: ANother thing on panFora the difference between novice and adv interfaces is quite large -- under novice mode, it's only 1 msg at a time in the msg pane. Advanced mode, it shows the entire thread-bodies. That makes some sense -- because once you introduce thread-bodies, you then have 2 ways to navigate through the same information, both present on your screen at once -- the 1 msg @ a time system is conceptually simpler and may make more sense for a beginner, or at least as a default option... I guess it also makes sense that beginners by default only have an expanded thread-header view... the feature of collapsing threads is good only for advanced users who need a way to manage the complexity of a discussion, once they're already familiar with the system. Brendan in response, Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Todd Davies wrote: Brendan, I can't load the panfora page you gave me from my home computer. From your description I'm not sure I'd want to do the advanced/novice thing. It seems to me that different people at all levels will want to view the messages in different ways, and as long as the default is understandable we shouldn't have too many problems. The setup I described doesn't seem too complex at all from a user's perspective. Allowing expand by thread seems like a good option within the collapsed view. At that point I'd say each message should be displayed individually if clicked on (within an expanded thread), so that all are seen and marked as read only if the whole thread is clicked on. I think with our screen setup we don't have enough room and it's not that useful to display a message in context of all the message bodies. Otherwise, I think your summary of my proposed approach is accurate. I'd have to play with panfora to evaluate it. Todd Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:24:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Brendan O'Connor" To: Todd Davies Subject: Re: ANother thing on panFora Yeah, that sounds reasonable. It's good to slant towards one message at a time given our limited screen space. Try this URL for panfora... http://cluster3.stanford.edu/withinc/newforum/ I just think they have a nice transition from novice -> expert mode -- prompting you, when you try to use certain advanced features like thread collapsing. Then when you select "expert mode", it also adds a bunch of new buttons at the same time. I think the novice/advanced modes are useful in terms of making novice mode have less clutter in the interface. I do think, however, that you have to first be comfortable with the discussion system before you start viewing it in different ways -- I'm talking about a dead-simple novice interface. I've often found people to be intimidated if there's too many options right up front -- having multiple sort modes sitting right up there on the top of the msglist pane, I think, could distract people. "there's too many buttons -- what am I supposed to click on?" Maybe I'm dumbing down the design too much... But I always feel that since I'm personally very used to complex interfaces, I have to try to compensate in the other direction when thinking about UI's. I'd guess there's 3 levels of experience you can have going in... 1) No experience with discussion forums at all. Experience only with email, which is quite unstructured, "threads" lasting only 2 or 3 msgs at most. If they're on mail lists, they're not using filters. 2) Experience with group-by-topic, flat-date-sorted forums - a discussion mail list with filtering, or a web forum like phpBB we saw. There's lots of sites that do this type of thing these days... blogs, small user comments at the end of articles... etc. so I think this could be a decently well-represented level of experience. 3) Experience with threaded discussion forums. This means being able to distinguish whether you should post a reply off someone else's post, or start a new top-level post. It just requires more thought to post in a threaded forum, as opposed to a flat forum where you just slap down your thoughts as the next message. Also, you have to be aware that new messages can appear in the middle of what you've read before. "Novice" mode, to me, would mean you're at #1 or #2 level, "Expert" means you're comforatble with #3, and would thus be fine with the level of abstraction involved in shifting your view of the discussion along threaded, date, or author lines. It's quite possible people can advance from one level to the other in just a few days; I think, however, that if an interface is designed for a higher level, it could be confusing for someone at a lower level. Do you have thoughs on allowing expand/collapse for each individual thread, or only all at once? I'm inclined to think that both are fine... Brendan Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:04:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Davies Sender: davies@localhost.localdomain To: Brendan O'Connor Subject: Re: ANother thing on panFora I've looked at the Panfora interface. It's okay, but I don't think it's that intuitive, actually, and there are other aspects of the interface I don't like (the size of the fonts, location and deisgn of buttons etc.). It shows how more can be less in terms of graphic design. Being able to switch from "show one" to "show all" messages within the message pane is kind of nice, but I don't feel like that's where I want to be making that choice as a user. I still like the scheme I proposed this morning, but adding in your idea of expanding by thread with an intuitive icon like "+" next to the top link. You've also persuaded me of the merits of collapsed views and full-thread message display, but my feeling is that people are going to want to choose one mode or the other for a while and stick with it. I've thought more about the novice versus expert mode issue. There are a couple of problems with introducing levels, from my point of view. First, in a democratic forum, I'd rather not introduce distinctions between levels of competence in users, since the point of this is to put everyone on the same level as much as possible. Second, creating such a distinction sends a signal that the system is hard to learn to use, and I don't really want it to be or to send that signal, especially since we don't have much evidence that we need to. My main feeling about levels is that it is very difficult to guess what people will find hard or easy a priori, without user testing. The scheme we are talking about doesn't seem overly complex to me and I think people can deal with it as long as the *behavior* of the system is not confusing (i.e. it does what people expect and want). I may be wrong, but I'd rather find that out through later testing. So I propose that we create a system that seems usable to us and not worry too much about what novices might make of it until we actually have some who can tell us. We'll have lots of access to such users, I think, in east palo alto, as Plugged In is very eager to work with us. Todd Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:09:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Davies Sender: davies@localhost.localdomain To: brendano@stanford Subject: thread -> subject Brendan, Looking at your designs, I see you use the word "subject" instead of "thread" which I like better. So I'd modify what I proposed this morning accordingly. Todd Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 02:30:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "Brendan O'Connor" To: Todd Davies Subject: Re: ANother thing on panFora Maybe we should not go for full-thread-body views quite yet -- while they're nice in many circumstances, [and I spent a while convincing you of them!] it's introducing too many complications, it seems, on two levels: (1) coordinating them with the thread headers display, and (2) UI to make the mode switch. I like your point on reflecting the democratic-ness of the forum in UI design. I agree, it could be odd if some people know how to zoom through message displays in different ways than others -- and if it's quite explicit in the UI that there are different classes of users, or if it makes that presumption at least. User testing to refine this point certainly makes sense, since once the framework's there, it's not terribly difficult to twiddle the UI around come fall. On the "subject -> thread" -- you mean that I should make sure to use "thread" terminology, right? FINALLY, for something completely different: there's some interesting ideas about network coordination among multiple organizations working for a common cause in this article on a software project for the Dean campaign: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59497,00.html. They have some interesting technical ideas for different groups to exchange information and ideas... in the longer-term, seeing what [if anything] they produce, might be an interesting approach to getting groups working together, a problem that we've talked about before but really haven't tackled in depth yet. Brendan From - Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 04:06:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Davies Sender: davies@localhost.localdomain To: Brendan O'Connor Subject: Re: ANother thing on panFora In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 222 We can certainly hold off on that if you'd like. Thanks for the link to the Dean article. There was already a lot of buzz about the meetup phenomenon at Planetwork, and of course now his campaign has people convinced the Internet is a great fundraising tool. I think, though, that he is just the candidate who most appeals to geeks. :) Todd *2. Documents box and viewer(from notebook, meetings, and email exchange 7/9-7/11/03 and later)* Design of documents box (doxbox) viewer: Fixed frame doxbox toolbar above variable-size document frame contains the following. (a) buttons for documents index page, back and forward (b) pulldown menu for naviation through documents, with indentations to indicate hierarchy of connections between documents and links, always showing number and name of current document in document frame (c) pulldown menu for actions on documents, always showing “Actions” above a set of options that depends on the current action in progress, which also determines the contents of the document frame. Actions When document frame displays a document for reading, the action in progress is “discuss/review”. Actions available in the action menu during discuss/review include the following (if privs allow): (1)Add Comment – activates spaces in document; when space is clicked, compose window pops up; can also add general comment on the document by either clicking at the bottom, clicking a button between the preface of the document and the text, clicking “compose message” in the discussion viewer, or replying to a general comment. (2)Edit/Revise – opens an edit window with document text below a space for document name and preface text; attaches revision as a child of present document; upon submission, generates announcement message for discussion containing document number/name, preface text, and diffs from parent document (3)Attach/Link – opens a form in the document frame to upload file or enter URLsas child attachment to current document; option to add message to discussion and preface for a document or link. (4)Assemble Documents – opens a form in the document frame to define one document (space to enter name and preface) as a combination of other documents; can keep appending until done. (5)Poll/Survey – opens a form in document frame to create a nonbinding (a.k.a. “straw”) poll or survey with Parameters = , Proposition 1 = followed by additional ones up to an arbitrary number, and Polling Method (depending on number of propositions and whether group has mandated method) = . (6)Vote/Decide - opens form in document frame to call for a group decision with same fill-ins as Poll/Survey (except “Polling Method” is changed to “Voting Method” and “Agree/Disagree” is changed to “Approve/Disapprove”), plus Decision Rule (depending on voting method, e.g. for one proposition and approve/disapprove method 50%, >Two-thirds, >75%, 100%}>), and Actions Upon Approval =