They’re all gonna laugh at you
I didn’t intend for this to look like a child’s rendition of how Z’s rollover menus might look if they were simplified. But, at the risk of being mocked incessantly, here it is:
PS. 10 points if you get the reference in the title of this post
PPS. I took a college drawing class
February 10th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Don’t feel bad. “Paper prototyping” is such a well-regarded technique that there’s even a book about it. (Haven’t read it yet.)
A main advantage is that people aren’t going to criticize tiny details too early on, like “That button needs to be mauve, not purple!” because it’s obviously a sketch. (In fact, a designer admitted to me that sometimes he’d make some small element really annoying, like making it red, to soak up a lot of that kind of criticism.)
So now you can tell people how cutting-edge your technique is.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Going from the most narrow to the broadest…
The improvement I like in this mockup is that you make an attempt to group like things on the same level. So, the current Z menu tabs mixes things like Z Communications (level 0 ) with ZNet (level 1), Topics (level 2), and Parecon (level 3); yours, on the other hand, finds things that are about the same “level” as each other.
But even that doesn’t really go far enough toward consistency. “Intl”, the subheading under Znet isn’t really a part of Znet; it’s all of the website, but in a different language. It doesn’t belong in that menu. Everything else in the menu is a link to different types of content. “Intl” is a link to the same type of content, but in different languages. In addition, it’s an unnecessary link to give such prominence; people will quickly find their language, bookmark it, then never need it again. Lastly, if you were a non-English speaker, you would never know that the non-word “intl” meant “go here to read in languages other than English”. I didn’t know that and I do speak English. I thought it meant “International relations” and got it confused with the “Places” and “Topics->International relations” menus.
I think the threshold for the organization should be: “Can you describe in a few sentences what each ’section’ is and how it differs from the other sections? Could somebody else coming to the site understand that differentiation intuitively?” Based on this, I still don’t “get” what the conceptual difference between parts of Zlib and parts of Znet and parts of ZSpace are. If I wanted to find the latest article by Noam Chomsky, is that his blog (ZSpace), topics (Zlib), or Recent content (ZNet)? My current understanding of what your top-level categories are would be:
ZNet: Textual content from famous people. More like a traditional magazine (including the traditional magazine). Where you go if you just want to read articles that have been vetted by an editor.
ZSpace: Social networking. No editor filtering content, plus different forms of content intended more to socialize with other people than editorialize.
Z A/V: Audio-video content.
ZLib: Random junk that didn’t fit anywhere else.
But, taking an additional step back, the real problem I have is that no matter how much feedback we give, no matter how many bug reports and mock-ups, and whatever, 1) I’m not sure this feedback is really wanted. Michael’s email asked for participation in the form of blog posts, not mock-ups. 2) If it’s scattered across a million places, in 1,000,000 different forms, it won’t be helpful to them. There has to be a process with Michael and Chris at the center, and the rest of participating in an organized way.
I know that when I work, if people just start firing random bug reports or feature requests at me via e-mail, chat, etc., they just get lost. There needs to be some sort of tracker where they can organize, prioritize, etc.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Sorry, I commented before reading your previous post. You said much the same thing I did in the middle there.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
1) I set up a Z Consumer Council page which will hopefully address your last 2 concerns. Actually this is based in part on our phone conversation a few days ago
2) I agree with your critique of “Intl”.
3) I think having a ZLib section was so that ZNet could be more of a vetted current events and recent analysis section, and everything else that people might want to delve into would be in ZLib. Sort of more general, an area for reference, for finding more information. So that’s why it would include topics, watches, and places, since those pages do have recent content but also have archived content about that issue. These 3 content-types are re-organizations of ZNet content. Also quotations, lyrics, and poems are informational and less time-sensitive, and ZEO is all the educational stuff, also less time-sensitive.
But you’re right, it doesn’t cut cleanly all the time. A recent Chomsky article? ZNet. An interview about Latin America? If new, on Znet; and whether new or old, on a ZLib/ZRef watch page(s). A blog post? That’s harder. I guess it depends on how much of a separation we want between writers and sustainers and members. I guess I’d lean toward having all blog posts on ZSpace, since those are unvetted and usually less formal, but maybe not have such a defined distinction between writers and everyone else. Maybe we can look for other ways to promote content we like to more prominence.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
[...] …Wins the Race: Marcus From the Austin Project for a Participatory Society « ZCC They’re all gonna laugh at you [...]
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:16 am
On second thought I think ZSpace should be a social and interactive space, so if people repost blogs or links there that would be fine, but the blogs themselves would need to be included with other original content, i.e. ZNet.