View the live prototype: prototype.atlarge.co.nz

This is an interactive mock up of the proposed online platform. The ‘back-end’ functionality has not been programmed meaning that people can not upload content or add comments. Instead it is intended demonstrate how the proposed platform would operate.

I’m still ironing out a few wrinkles so don’t be afraid to make suggestions and let me know what you think.

Feedback

Abstract

Many people that would like to contribute at some level towards creating art in public spaces. However little is currently being done to make use of this untapped potential. The difficulties involved with collecting and coordinating dispersed talent often prevents it from being utilized. But now the Internet offers new opportunities to make harnessing latent talent much easier. Successful online platforms (such as Wikipedia and YouTube) demonstrate the potential value that can be derived from volunteers when appropriate systems are in place to utilize their contributions. Jeff Howe refers to this idea of harnessing distributed volunteered effort via the web as ‘crowdsourcing’. Which he explains as “the process by which the power of many can be leveraged to accomplish feats that were once the province of a specialized few” (2008). This thesis aims to investigate how an online platform might harness voluntary contributions in order to produce public art. The design objective for this project is to develop an online platform that allows people to contribute towards creating art in public spaces. My research explores the needs and motivations of potential contributors as well as techniques for harnessing voluntary contribution and coordinating group effort. As understanding human behaviour and user interaction is central to this project I have adopted a user-centered approach to research and development. To better understand the requirements of the proposed online platform user research was initially conducted in the form of focus groups with potential users and then via an in depth case study. In order to tackle the challenge of designing an entire platform the process was divided into distinct elements that could be addressed individually. These elements included the core functionality, the brand identity, the structural design, the interface design, and the visual design. For each element I consider what techniques might help to better harness voluntary contribution. The final result provides an online environment for people to get involved with specific art projects around their city. Projects are presented as separate challenges and users can contribute at many different levels such as sharing designs online, attending events, or simply providing feedback.

Download the full pdf from Scribd

I stumbled across a post by Ross Mayfield in which he applies the power law curve to user contribution and it got me thinking about how to facilitating a wider spectrum of participation than mearly creators and consumers. I assume the axis on this diagram could relate to how much a single action contributes and the number of people doing that action. For example the act of visiting a page contributes very little however their are lots of people who do so, while at the other end of the spectrum creating content can be considered a high engagement activity however comparatively less people do this.

This highlights the importance of offering different levels of participation that are inline with the amount of contribution that users are willing to make.

In order to harness user contribution it is important to offer the ability to participate at a level users are willing to make. For example I occasionally feel like contributing to political issues however if my only two options are ticking a box every few years or running for parliament as a full time job then I’m only going to bother doing the first option simply because running for parliament evolves far more effort than than I’m willing to contribute. This is unfortunate because I’m probably willing to contribute slightly more than ticking a box every few every but there isn’t an opportunity to participate that is inline with the amount of contribution that I’m willing to make.

The idea behind creative commons licenses is to encourage content to be shared, remixed, adapted in ways that full copyright does not allow. While the language used to describe these licenses may do a a great job legally it does not really invite people to get involved and share / copy / remix the content. For Example if an author wants people to freely share and reproduce copies of their work they can assign a creative commons label to their work such as “Attribution-No Derivative Works (BY-ND)”. However while this does grant people permission to reproduce their work it does very little to encourage them.

Instead of the rather long winded and intimidating “Attribution-No Derivative Works (BY-ND)” a more inviting label could be “Share This”. And instead of displaying “Attribution (BY)”, a label such as “Remix This” is much more likely to invite people to participate with the content.

Obviously it is important to link to the full creatives commons license some where on the page, however for the sake of inviting people to participate with content using copyright labels such as ‘Remix This’ seems much more logical

In Code and other Laws of Cyberspace, Larry Lessig argues that we need to pay close attention to how systems are designed if we want to understand their effects. The way that systems are designed can have a huge impact on what they produce. Everything from the words that are used to interact with users to the underling architecture of a system can effect how a system is used and what gets produced as a result.

In this post I wanted to make some observations on existing website interfaces to see if their design may be effecting what is produced. I should point out however that while the design of system can influence how it gets used and what it produces, in many cases it is the desired interactions and outcomes that influences how system are also designed.

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions?

As an introduction to this post I want to reference Dan Ariely’s TED talk on Dec of 2008. Dan Ariely is the author of Predictably Irrational in this talk he shows some ways in which we are influenced to a large degree not by our own rational judgment but by systems and other outside influences. (From 5.00 to 8.00 min) Dan Ariely observes to how the even the design of a form can have a massive impact on the decisions people make.

“We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions… However what this is actually saying is that many of the decisions we make are not residing within us. They are residing with the person who is designing that form. The person who designed that form will have a huge influence on what you end up doing.”

Language and Branding

There are plenty of marketing and advertising books that explore how language and visual design can influence people. When designing platforms aimed at involving users it is vital to use language that communicates this. Youtube, MySpace

Interface

Website Discussion: Comments / Threaded Comments / Forums /

Thanks to everyone who made it along to Manky Chops on Tuesday evening for the first meet-up! It was great to hear everyones ideas! I’m putting them up here for people to comment on over the next few days and see what people are most interested in. Feel free to add more, especially if you couldn’t make it along or you have some more ideas that you want to share.

PS: Since it’s such a huge wall (1.8m x 80m x three sides) we should be able to do a number of different projects on it, over the next few months. However until the website is up and running next month I think it would be best to start with some projects that don’t require too much coordination. Anyway feel free to suggest more ideas and say which ones you are interested in working on. We’ll make a decision about the first project in a weeks time.