Once both systems were running reliably, men andwomen both contributed, with surprising results.
NUMBERS 95 messagesto the Wall 51% 49% 47 womenvs. 48 men Women Men
CONTENTBathroom talk: “Anyone else notice thatwomen use ten times as much toilet paper asmen? What’s up with that?”Philosophical: “I feel more like I do nowthan I did when I got here” / “This stall is the /center of the digital universe. Think about it.”
CONTENTRandom: “In soviet russia we use pencil.” //"Are you going to the peace corps reunion inSenegal?”Conversation: "Where is a good place toget brunch?? / "I like Janes on Houston. But /iz crowded!"
CONTENT Surprising: "Annie are you really runninginto the bathroom to read this? Lol-Chelsea""Intentionally not avoiding the creepy stall todo this..."
“Annies hot. “Seems like youShe likes it dont hear toodoggy style.” much Lynyrd Skynyrd on the“Hey liesje radiohodgson, for anymore...”a good time,text jay at “Hello my name650 575 5366” is Prometheus.”“8==== D”
ANALYSIS Theory: Men at ITP weredeliberately well-behaved, whilewomen attempted to have fun withthe project by embracing thestereotypes about bathroom graffiti. Substantive discussions areunlikely to occur. Instead, theconversation becomes moreannotative.
FINAL THOUGHTS We successfully created aspace used by both men andwomen. Moving Forward: designlayout for conversation, notannotation.
THANK YOUAtif Ahmad, Bruna Calheiros, MichaelGambale, Matt London, Patrick Muth