Dear Users of Design Research Network,
Most of the 200 members aren’t active. What is the reason for it?
Within my final exam “communication and production of knowledge in the web 2.0”,I’m analysing this community, with the goal to make the platform more attractive to use.
It seems very important, to include your opinion and experience as users of this platform.
I’m looking forward to receive feedback (critics, helpful suggestions and ideas).
Do you think the platform is:
· Useful (Can you apply your knowledge)?
· Usable (How do you handle with the human-computer interaction)?
· Desirable (Does something touch you more deeply)?
· Findable (Is it easy to find what you are looking for)?
· Accessible (Does anyone has a disability and can’t use any function)?
· Credible (Does the presentation (design) of DRN represent it’s values and ideas)?
· Valuable (Does the side transfer value)?
This is a further approach to get feedback of you, thanks to all who have already answered, and given helpful suggestions.
You can get more information about my analyses on an earlier entry:
http://www.designresearchnetwork.org/drn/content/umfrage
DRN usability
Dear Kathrin,
some comments regarding usability of DRN:
- structure
The structure of the site is not yet really user-friendly. The category names are quite ok, but it is not ok that the structure behind is the same in every category. This produces one big mess.
"General Discussion" might work in a blog-like manner, ok. It might be enhanced by a chatroom function.
"Literature Review" needs a very rigid format in order to become useful.
"Conferences" should have some structure: is it about conference reports? Is it about making conference proceedings available? Etc.
"Announcements" must be a very quick medium, probably in an extra window.
"Questions&Hypotheses" is irritating. Only insiders know that it relates to the DRN-conference.
- navigation
The navigation by means of the tags does not work very well. I do not see any patterns emerge there, that might improve the orientation.
- knowledge base
The treasure of knowledge is dispersed in an unstructured manner. Retrieval is rather difficult.
- ...
- "think" is not necessary. There are better ways to store own data.
- The user list has a high potential for establishing links between people with common interests, etc. For that purpose users have to be persuaded to provide complete information.
- ...
- ... to be continued
What do others think?
Jonas
the platform
I think this site actually gives the opportunity to make contacts and share discussion and opinions even if it does work if you keep on visiting to see what is new.
Maybe it could be improved if you receive an email when someone discusses your thoughts or discusses thoughts you are interested in.
I could not really use the search tool, it never finds what I am looking for even if the content is in the site.
There also could be a tool for searching people by name or research topics to facilitate contacts...
gaia
errata corrige and new suggestion
I found the preference to receive periodical email...
sorry for that.
I was thinking the contents could also be sorted by number of comments: to take part in a already open discussion it is probably easier than to start a new one. But this will probably damage new discussions...
gaia
structural problems of the site
I think the blog structure is the most uncovenient about the site. I check things up in an RSS-Reader, that brings more clarity to the contents that are coming up.
And: The clicks are summing up quite a bit in this Navigation.
Not very useful.
The graphic design is not hierarchic enough to guide. There are too many marked items on one page, i guess.
--------------------------------------------------------
But: Discussion does not only depend on formal aspects. I think most of the people in research work on complex things – you just dont sum it all up like in twitter. I guess that people really have to work on their statements here.
And how would you react in a minute to a complex statement?
It takes time...
I also think that the think/say thing is absolutely not necessary.
b
DRN
Thanks for the comments.
Birgit:
And how would you react in a minute to a complex statement?
I wonder if you have an idea, to make it more easy to answer, without loosing the quality of content?
think the blog structure is the most uncovenient about the site. I check things up in an RSS-Reader.
What has your RSS-Reader, was the blog structure does not have?
Kathrin
Mass vs. Quality
I wonder if you have an idea, to make it more easy to answer, without loosing the quality of content?
- one method could be to have more CONVERSATION...content that is verbalized in a manner as if all participants would physically speak to each other. If you image us all sitting at a table, the actual content of the conversation would have also a potential to high quality without too long single statments. Image a conversation with Einstein.
But this depends on the site editors ability to initiate a habitual checkback of the users. I think site owners have to accept that the nature of the user is often also and especially atracted by off-topic-content.
- other method I could Image is to have an initial statement in the e.g. in the beginning of the month. A controversial simple statement, that people can refer to without too much trouble.
I think even if these methods would not automatically mean the quality of content would very high, but it help the basic "community feeling" of the forum.
-----------------------
What has your RSS-Reader, was the blog structure does not have?
I love my RSS Reader (Vienna). I have about 80-100 subscriptions, that I check hourly. The big advantage is that you can choose the depth of information you want to get:
From just seeing how much content comes in in a certain amount of time to reading posts and clicking through to websites. You only have to use the arrow keys to read, quite important to me, because, clicks sum up in a crazy way in blog structure and the design sometimes is really only in the way. (that is also interesting referring to your work "Kommunikation, Wissen und Metaphern". Things I get throughthe Feedreader tend to go directly to my brain, and often I wonder where the information comes from...(I havent decided yet if I like that or not).
so i tend to prefer sites and forums that have an well managed rss feed (media included, whole post available through rss). sites that force me to go to their webspace suck.
using of DRN
What I like most about this debate is the way it points to an inherent paradox, one familiar to all teachers.
It seems to me there is little point in asking the so few who use the DRN why so few use it—they are the ones who find it valuable! The question of interest needs to reach those who do not use it! Herein lies the paradox. We are addressing the already converted, where we wish to communicate with those not yet converted.
I have no answer. I remain amused, as I have been all my teaching life, by this matter. Many a time have I stood up in front of a class to complain about those who were not there. How silly can tha be?
If someone has an answer to the paradox of trying to talk to the absentee, I would be very interested to hearit. Otherwise?
DRN
First of all, I was very glad to find this website since I've just started to get into design research. So, THANK YOU!
Since I'm new to this website and I also encountered some problems using it I thought I should share my thoughts about it.
So this is what I experienced, using this website. Since this post is already one year old, I would be interested if something has changed since then.