AV Debate: Discussion wireframes

http://helpfultechnology.com | [email protected] | 020 3012 1024 | @lesteph

AV Debate: wireframes for discussion

September 2010

Steph Gray


Background to the wireframesAV 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:

1. People who need information about AV

2. People who need information about (or want to influence) the people who want info

3. 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 addressAV 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 visualisationAV Debate

1. 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

2. Blog-style area

3. Simple latest items added, whether evidence, supporter info, media articles, tagged for navigation

4. 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 usAV Debate

1. As close as we can get to the actual referendum question, linking through to more detail about history

2. Links to listing of supporters (orgs/individuals) of this position

3. Links to reasons supporters cite (curated and contributed)

4. 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 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-structuredAV Debate

1. Curated/originated content from site moderators setting factual context

2. Curated opinion content + loosely-tagged submitted content

3. Come to a view about which position to support, and share your decision with friends

4. Facebook-style newsfeed of latest added content (across all sections of the site)

5. Simple navigation by tag (e.g. ‘opinion poll’, ‘STV’, ‘Labour’)

AVdebate.com


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

Learnabout the referendum and what AV is

Reviewthe arguments in favour and against, and for other alternatives

Supportone of the positions

A media article about AVTag Tag

Recent contributions to the debate

Opinion poll resultsTag Tag

New argument from a supporterTag

A blog postTag Tag

A useful neutral resourceTag Tag

Tag

Popular tags

Tag Tag

Tag Tag

Tag

Tag

1 2 3

4

5


Route D: Process and timeline-orientedAV Debate

1. Curated/originated content summarising the current situation

2. Options are originated content, with ‘Who says what’ a curated and submitted area for debate participants to register positions

3. 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 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

Documents

AV Debate: Discussion wireframes