AV Debate: Discussion wireframes

AV Debate: wireframes for discussion September 2010 Steph Gray

Background to the wireframes
AV Debate
These are design ideas for discussion, and hence propose a number of radically different approaches to this project
They’re based on:
Anthony’s use cases document, which defines three groups of audiences/goals:
People who need information about AV
People who need information about (or want to influence) the people who want info
People who are interested in the debate/process
Catherine’s content overview, which establishes a range of possible content types, including: Facts/definitions/glossary; Case studies; What if models/visualisations; Listening (round-up/aggregator of social web) incl multimedia; Pros/Cons (reasoned opinion pieces); Comment (meta-analysis by moderators)

Design issues to address
AV Debate
Make it simple enough to grasp and navigate quickly, without oversimplifying debate
Binary choices (pro/con, yes/no) easiest, but may undermine credibility
Presenting and prioritising curated/factual content vs user-generated/opinion
To what extent the site values quantitative support for positions in the debate (i.e. how important is popularity in how positions/sources are presented?)
Which of Anthony’s use cases are our primary audience?
This could be mainly a niche site for commentators/wonks
or it could be mainly a platform for activists to mount and fight campaigns
or it could be mainly a Wikipedia-style source of credible info for lay voters
or we could avoid prioritising

Route A: Debate visualisation
AV Debate
Visualisation of the key debate positions, either generate live somehow or manually updated - as a bubble chart or Debategraph-style mindmap. Larger items might mean popular, extensively-covered in media, or most debated
Blog-style area
Simple latest items added, whether evidence, supporter info, media articles, tagged for navigation
Details of the history of the AV referendum and known timeline; plus info about this site and how/why it exists
AVdebate.com The terms : Understand the definitions and descriptions used >> The evidence : Examine the facts and claims made >> Who supports what? : Why groups and individuals are taking their positions >> Site proposition/explanantion >> read more Site navigation Position A Position B Position C Latest news Recent debate contributions About the AV referendum and how to get involved 1 2 3 4 This route emphasises the shape of the debate, using a (clickable) visualisation to get readers into the issues, rather than the history/process of the referendum

Route B: With us or against us
AV Debate
As close as we can get to the actual referendum question, linking through to more detail about history
Links to listing of supporters (orgs/individuals) of this position
Links to reasons supporters cite (curated and contributed)
Issues/complications/conditions placed on support by supporters, to accommodate ‘No, STV would be better’ type arguments
AVdebate.com The terms : Understand the definitions and descriptions used >> The evidence : Examine the facts and claims made >> The referendum process: Find out what happens when and how to get involved >> Site proposition/explanantion >> read more Site navigation This route is designed to be instantly understandable, and to map to the ultimate choice people will have to make in the referendum - trying to show there’s more complexity beneath Q. Should the UK move to the Alternative Vote system for General Elections? Find out more about the referendum >> Yes No Because: Says: But: Because: Says: But: 1 2 3 4

Route C: Get informed, loosely-structured
AV Debate
Curated/originated content from site moderators setting factual context
Curated opinion content + loosely-tagged submitted content
Come to a view about which position to support, and share your decision with friends
Facebook-style newsfeed of latest added content (across all sections of the site)
Simple navigation by tag (e.g. ‘opinion poll’, ‘STV’, ‘Labour’)
AVdebate.com Site proposition/explanantion >> read more Site navigation Latest news This route is about the discovery and judging process people will need to go through in weighing up the decision - but keeping the site structure tag-based only Learn about the referendum and what AV is Review the arguments in favour and against, and for other alternatives Support one of the positions A media article about AV Tag Tag Recent contributions to the debate Opinion poll results Tag Tag New argument from a supporter Tag A blog post Tag Tag A useful neutral resource Tag Tag Tag Popular tags Tag Tag Tag Tag Tag Tag 1 2 3 4 5

Route D: Process and timeline-oriented
AV Debate
Curated/originated content summarising the current situation
Options are originated content, with ‘Who says what’ a curated and submitted area for debate participants to register positions
Not sure - curated/originated descriptions of process and political implications of each option plus invitation to debate participants to describe what might happen under each alternative?
AVdebate.com Site proposition/explanantion >> read more Site navigation Latest news This route uses a timeline, from distant past to imagined futures, as a way of navigating the debate and its consequences History The debate What if? AV FPTP Something else Where this referendum came from The current voting system and its origins The options Who says what How the vote works What would happen under… Recent debate contributions About this site 1 2 3

http://blog.helpfultechnology.com	21
http://www.helpfultechnology.com	8
http://davepress.net	5

AV Debate: Discussion wireframes

by Steph Gray on Sep 13, 2010

Accessibility

Upload Details

Usage Rights

3 Embeds 34

Statistics

AV Debate: Discussion wireframes — Presentation Transcript