Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Re: Technography, Knowledge Management and Frontier
Author: David Carter-Tod Posted: 3/1/1999; 6:42:06 AM Topic: Technography, Knowledge Management and Frontier Msg #: 3397 (In response to 3328) Prev/Next: 3396 / 3398
There is also another huge part involved here, that Bernie and some others have hinted at in this and related threads: not JUST the results of a meeting, but also a record of how those results came to be. A record of the conversations and shared understanding that it takes to arrive at that consensus.
I've done some research in this area, and in general in terms of constructing structured site design rationales. Something that supports this functionality would be great, and I think we're close.
What we came up with in our research is structured design rationales that manage the relationship between designers and users. It was based on the technique of scenario-based design, in which a user/designer writes a scenario of use, then makes claims about the artifacts contained in the scenario, and then dialogue happens about the claims. This often leads to general design propositions which are subsequently discussed with reference to the original scenarios.
The problem we had was representing this in such a way that a user could be writing scenarios, making claims, and altering the designed artifacts pretty much at the same time, while keeping a record. We needed a way to allow for personal deliberation and public deliberation (as clearly distinct activities), both structured in similar ways.
I'm thinking that this might be possible with this discussion group setup. You could have an original scenario (message), claims as responses to the scenario by the original composer, and then open both scenarios and claims up for public discussion. The trick would be to integrate the editing of the actual product (typically a web site artifact, e.g. design, page, component) into this process.
I think this is already beginning to happen informally in this discussion group, but not in the structured way I'm talking about. I see people posting propositions about tools, sites, etc. with some mention of scenarios of use; then claims are made by the original poster and others; then revisions are made to the original artifact. How tight can this development cycle get and can one tool get it done? That's where I think we're headed.
p.s. This is not really a response to anything, just a post of long percolating thoughts.
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:48:15 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.