AV Debate: Discussion wireframes


Published on

Four possible homepage design routes for the AVdebate.com site, aimed at promoting an informed debate around the forthcoming AV referendum in the UK

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

AV Debate: Discussion wireframes

  1. 1. AV Debate: wireframes for discussion September 2010 Steph Gray
  2. 2. Background to the wireframes <ul><li>AV Debate </li></ul><ul><li>These are design ideas for discussion, and hence propose a number of radically different approaches to this project </li></ul><ul><li>They’re based on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anthony’s use cases document, which defines three groups of audiences/goals: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>People who need information about AV </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>People who need information about (or want to influence) the people who want info </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>People who are interested in the debate/process </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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) </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Design issues to address <ul><li>AV Debate </li></ul><ul><li>Make it simple enough to grasp and navigate quickly, without oversimplifying debate </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Binary choices (pro/con, yes/no) easiest, but may undermine credibility </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Presenting and prioritising curated/factual content vs user-generated/opinion </li></ul><ul><li>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?) </li></ul><ul><li>Which of Anthony’s use cases are our primary audience? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This could be mainly a niche site for commentators/wonks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>or it could be mainly a platform for activists to mount and fight campaigns </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>or it could be mainly a Wikipedia-style source of credible info for lay voters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>or we could avoid prioritising </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Route A: Debate visualisation <ul><li>AV Debate </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>Blog-style area </li></ul><ul><li>Simple latest items added, whether evidence, supporter info, media articles, tagged for navigation </li></ul><ul><li>Details of the history of the AV referendum and known timeline; plus info about this site and how/why it exists </li></ul>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
  5. 5. Route B: With us or against us <ul><li>AV Debate </li></ul><ul><li>As close as we can get to the actual referendum question, linking through to more detail about history </li></ul><ul><li>Links to listing of supporters (orgs/individuals) of this position </li></ul><ul><li>Links to reasons supporters cite (curated and contributed) </li></ul><ul><li>Issues/complications/conditions placed on support by supporters, to accommodate ‘No, STV would be better’ type arguments </li></ul>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
  6. 6. Route C: Get informed, loosely-structured <ul><li>AV Debate </li></ul><ul><li>Curated/originated content from site moderators setting factual context </li></ul><ul><li>Curated opinion content + loosely-tagged submitted content </li></ul><ul><li>Come to a view about which position to support, and share your decision with friends </li></ul><ul><li>Facebook-style newsfeed of latest added content (across all sections of the site) </li></ul><ul><li>Simple navigation by tag (e.g. ‘opinion poll’, ‘STV’, ‘Labour’) </li></ul>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
  7. 7. Route D: Process and timeline-oriented <ul><li>AV Debate </li></ul><ul><li>Curated/originated content summarising the current situation </li></ul><ul><li>Options are originated content, with ‘Who says what’ a curated and submitted area for debate participants to register positions </li></ul><ul><li>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? </li></ul>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
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.