[MG] Home page redesign competition

[Thomas von der Elbe]

PS: I'm still working on my homepage-draft  ;-)

For now, just minor suggestions for my candidate Ed:

http://u.zelea.com:8080/v/w/D?b=4038&a=4025&aR=2687&bR=2717

and for my co-voter Mike:

http://u.zelea.com:8080/v/w/D?b=4038&a=4026&aR=2705&bR=2717

What do you think?

PPS: There is a bug somewhere in the diff-bridge, ... if things don't 
work they way they should.

T


On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:24, Thomas von der Elbe wrote:
> And here even more to the wishlist:
>
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 2:01, Ed Pastore wrote:
>> Some hopefully constructive criticism...
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Michael Allan wrote:
>>
>>> I hope to propose a more serious amendment soon.  For now, I have only
>>> minor fixups:
>>>
>>>  http://u.zelea.com:8080/v/w/D?b=4026&a=4025&aR=2687&bR=2691
>>>
>>>  (styles have changed, please hit refresh)
>>>
>>> Note that we now have "diff me" links in the UI (Ed log out to see).
>>
>> In the interests of approachability, instead of "diff me" with 
>> explanatory text in the <a title>, would you consider having the 
>> entire text of the title be the link... perhaps with an "expert mode" 
>> that collapses that long text into just "diff me."
>
> +1, that would be perfect.
>
>>
>>> I'm working to clear a path of entry for new users, maybe something
>>> like this:
>>>
>>>  1. Potential user is attracted by drafting chatter in the list and
>>>     follows one of the embedded diff links (like above).
>>
>> Is this a good point of entry? It just shows the diff fragments 
>> without surrounding context. Shouldn't users be encouraged to start 
>> on someone's full draft? And/or would it be hard to do a full 
>> side-by-side, even if most of the content is duplicated?
>
> Would the same be possible like above, i.e. have both possibilities? 
> Show full text comparison or collapse to diffs only? That would be 
> best I guess.
>
>>
>>>     He sees the diff, then he either:
>>>
>>>       a) Follows a "diff me" link against one of two drafts (say
>>>          Ed's), or similarly:
>>>
>>>       b) Follows a link to Ed's draft where he sees another "diff me"
>>>          link, and he follows that one.
>>>
>>>  2. He is presented with a login screen and logs in.
>>>
>>>  3. He sees a massive diff, which is Ed's entire text.
>>>
>>>  4. He presses the patch button, which in this case is labeled
>>>     "Create a voter draft".  He is warned that he is about to:
>>>
>>>       a) Create a draft in the Metagov wiki, a clone of Ed's text.
>>
>> More explanatory text such as this should be in the original link. 
>> "Create a voter draft" is not easily understood. How about something 
>> really simplistic like: "Want to make changes to this proposal? 
>> Create a new draft based on this one." With the second sentence linked.
>
> +1
>
>>
>>>       b) Cast a vote for Ed.
>>
>> This is where Votorola confuses me. It seems very odd that this user 
>> should vote for me at the same time he is proposing something 
>> different. Can you help clarify that? And if so, then that 
>> clarification text should show up on the page here somewhere as well.
>
> Generally speaking: I think at first glance it looks counter-intuitive 
> to be allowed to have an own position and at the same time vote for 
> another position. But on the other hand, if I (as your voter) suggest 
> improvements to your position, I already have a (maybe just slightly) 
> different position than yours.
>
> But I guess your point is about: why should I automatically vote for 
> someone, from whom I happened to first copy text? And I agree, this 
> should be far less automatic. Since we are so few voters atm it 
> doesn't seem to make any sense, but I can imagine, if there are 
> thousands, the question "Do you want to also cast a vote for Ed?" 
> makes sense, since this will be the most probable case.
>
>>
>>>  5. He presses OK.
>>>
>>>     This takes him to the new draft page.
>>>
>>>  6. He edits the text and saves it.
>>>
>>>  7. He presses the "diff me" link at the top of his draft.
>>>
>>>  8. It presents him w/ a diff vs. Ed's, which amounts to the whole of
>>>     his proposed amendment.  (The bridge will be smart enough to
>>>     realize that he wants a diff against his candidate and not
>>>     against himself.)
>>>
>>>  9. He copies the diff URL from his address bar, pastes it into the
>>>     original thread and says, "Hey what do you think of this
>>>     amendment?"
>>
>> Steps 7-9 seem very unintuitive, since "diff me" serves the opposite 
>> purpose earlier (explanatory text aside, it's still confusing). 
>> Couldn't these three steps be automated? After saving in step 6, it 
>> could then run the diff against my original and present the user with 
>> a convenient link to that diff, with the text: "Here is the link to 
>> the differences between your draft and the one you based it on." or 
>> other such plain language.
>
> I dont know, if I would want an automatic diff, after I finished my 
> position. But to solve the problem: How if we would have a "diff vs. 
> candidate" besides every "diff me"?
>
> Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
> http://www.metagovernment.org/
> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
> Manage subscription: 
> http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/attachments/20110210/8ed8f217/attachment.html>


Originally posted to the mailing list of the Metagovernment Project:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org