A Simple Helpful Site…
Powazek (2002) stated three key issues in his book Design for Community that should be initially considered when building a community; audience, content, and community. Likewise, Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002) in their book entitled Cultivating Communities of Practice spoke of a structural model that forms communities of practice; domain, community, and practice. I will discuss these intellectual development tools in regards to the creation of an online community associated with the of COM 632 graduate seminar “On-line Interaction†at Purdue University.
Audience
I would imagine the primary audience of our site to be Purdue students; both of undergraduate and graduate classification. A secondary audience could include Purdue alumni or even the occasional faculty member as well. One assumption with regards to participants would be of at least average computer familiarity; everyone should therefore be able to understand how to participate on the site. Computers are regularly available through the University if one does not have his or her own computer; so as to rule out a digital divide. The audience would have a common ground, the domain, through their association with Purdue and involvement with either answering or presenting questions.
Content
I recently decided that I like the idea of a “helpful†site. What I mean is this, a place where questions could be posed and answered at the same time. Class discussions have mentioned the following possibilities: homework and paper help; advice in relation to social or personal problems; a way to get questions associated with university familiarity answered. All of these ideas have to do with helping. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002) stated that the glue of communities involves personal stories. Such stories could be present on this site. A feeling of connection, of communitas, could come from this site. The site could be highly personal in that it would be Boilermakers helping fellow Boilermakers.
Many people argue that PUSH is not a sufficient place to go to for help; what if this site was. I am not trying to denounce any organization, I am simply stating a concern that I have heard voiced on more than one occasion. If personal problems could be anonymously presented and helped by user comments and fellow user stories; communitas would likely develop, and create a greater bond between users. A site where anything from homework help, to getting acquainted to campus, to help with personal issues, has many possibilities for growth; for evolution.
Community
This would all involve community centered development; community creation that is centered on communication rather than the technology associated with it. Members should be involved in the development of content for the site. Develop and test cycles should be implemented in the creation process of the community. Developments will be made to the site, community members will participate, and then provide feedback. This feedback will allow developers to complete the cycle again adhering to suggestions from the people who matter most; the participants. (Preece, 2000). The best way to develop a site is to let it evolve through participant feedback and natural growth.
I see the activities associated with the presented ideal content as using information dissemination, information exchange, discussion, and support Information dissemination would allow messages to be sent, articles to be posted, and so on. Information exchange would permit everyone to send and request information within the community. Discussion would allow for comments to take place. Lastly, support would be essential to this site if a “helpful†content base was decided upon (Preece 2000).
“Keep it Simpleâ€
I believe that this site should maintain a simplistic design. I see our goal as attracting any student from any major; not someone who is well versed in computer development and could understand complex layouts and formats. A complicated appearance could turn many people away; even if the site is not truely complicated. It has already been agreed upon that it is too difficult to find things on the current university website. Therefore, I see a basic layout where content is the main focus to be the best design.
The design should reflect what the community is about, and should remain constant throughout the site. Feel good symbols are often used within communities, as a result, I say that traditional Purdue symbols should be seen somewhere within the site. This will help members remember the common ground they share.
Helpful Development Tools
A few possible tools exist for avoiding people who want to cause harm to the site; reputation-management and burying the post button. Reputation-management would involve rewards for positive feedback or posts. Given the sometimes sensitive nature of the site, people would have login names. Burying the post button refers to creating more clicks between the initial page to the actual post (Powazek, 2002). Both processes are considered to be effective in “chasing away” possible misfits.
The idea for the class site is still in development. I see a place of a “helpful†nature as great way to facilitate discussion, create feelings of self worth within a community, and create a small home for people on such a large campus.
References
Powazek, D. (2002). Design for community: The art of connecting real people in virtual places. Indianapolis: Pearson Technology Group.
Preece, J. (2000). On-line communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability.
New York: Wiley and Sons.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W., (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
What a thoughtful post, Sarah! We can certainly do a much better job than the Purdue site you referenced. It lacks an intuitive design, for one thing. I agree with the “keep it simple, stupid” construct. I feel that what TC and Zeynep have proposed is too much like a game. If a person wants to play a game, he/she goes to a game site or goes to the games section of a site…and we may want to add that as a separate entity. But, to lay it out as they have suggested would be fascinating to a small portion of our population—once. Just as we marveled on first glance at Ms. Dewey. After 2-3 minutes, we were ready to move on to a more helpful site with no intention of ever coming back to see her again. I was thinking of it all last night, and once I was finally able to get to sleep, I had a terrible nightmare, imagining that I was the silver ball in a pinball machine.
Just because it’s possible to build 3-D pop-ups into a book doesn’t mean that I’d like to discover one every 10 pages or so in a novel. A kid’s book, maybe, but a novel wouldn’t be the appropriate environment. I don’t want to become overly or unnecessarily involved with the book’s structure. I want to get involved with the story. On our site, I would welcome the simplicity of the computer’s 2-D characteristics, and look forward to the third dimension that is the communitas, the connection, the mind’s expectations of what “can” be and what I can “make” it to be.