MSC Project 2 Progress Report 2

Our second progress report for project 2. This page describes our continued progress of the information gathered on meta-design and changes to the main web page that will eventually contain our identification and analysis of existing meta-design environments. To view our progress on the project, click on this link => Makeshift Crew Project Main Page.

Due: Monday, November 15th at 12pm

1.) Title
The Spectrum of Meta-Design Environments: The Correlation of Openness and Purpose

2.) Authors

Authors of this document are the MakeShift Crew:

Alberto Aranda
Andy Truman
Anne Gatchell
Ho Yun "Bobby" Chan
Kyla Maletsky

3.) Abstract (addressing: what it is you are doing and why that is interesting and important)
We propose an extended definition of meta-design which relates the intent of the meta-designer to the degree of allowed user freedom. Current definitions make it difficult to determine strict success or failure of meta-design environments. Indeed, we think that measuring success of meta-design cannot be so black-and-white. We believe that meta-design is a spectrum of "user control", and environments are made to allow different levels of user-control, depending on the the goals of the meta-designers. The level of openness in an environment is an important consideration when designing an environment, because openness has certain profound effects on the environment's professionalism, usability, etc. Allowing a large amount of freedom can mean that amateurs can make the site unreadable, for example. However, making a site too rigid can frustrate users who want to change or do things in a certain way. The designer must decide how easy it will be to make changes, how much can be changed, and how much knowledge the user must possess in order to make valuable alterations.

4.) Keywords
meta-design, continuum of mutability, SER model, turing tar pit, Web 2.0

5.) Problem / Goal
a.) Statement of the Problem — including how your understanding of the problem has changed while you have worked on it over the period of the course

The current statement of the problem:

i.) In what ways do these environments support meta-design?
ii.) Are they more successful or less successful than the other environments you analyzed, why?
iii.) Finally, taking all of the above into account, what design guidelines or principals would you employ when building your own meta-design environment?

As we began to explore these questions, we realized that we could not determine the success of one environment based on the others because they all have different goals. This changed our approach to the problem because we began to see meta-design as a concept of variability rather than as a single rule. Furthermore, we had trouble interpreting existing definitions and applying them to real websites and environments. So, our new project questions are as follows:

i) What is a definition of meta-design that is both accessible and applicable?
ii) What is a successful meta-design environment?
iii) How can environments in general best apply various aspects of meta-design?

b.) Rationale — explain why the problem is interesting and important?
One of the problems with understanding meta-design is that many of the current definitions are verbose and full of technical jargon. While these definitions usually have lots of useful information, it is hard for average users or designers to understand and apply this information to their own environments. We think it would be great if there were a good description of meta-design that anyone can read and get something useful out of. Ideally, anyone could read our definition of meta-design and get a good idea of how to use meta-design techniques to improve their environment. 

6.) Methodologies
a.) (e.g.: questionnaire, interview, data analysis, software development, testing of other developments…..)
Based on our definition of meta-design, we rate the environment or product. This rating helps us to identify what is more of a meta-design environment. This will be used to quantify our spectrum for the meta-design environments. We also developed a survey for the class.
So far, our ratings have been entirely subjective, based on our own discussions and opinions, but we hope to introduce a more systematic way of rating different environments, though we acknowledge that it will not really be possible to get a completely objective and quantitative method for rating them.

7.) Related Work
a.) use this section to argue the uniqueness of your contribution
Meta-design is usually defined as an abstract concept relating to designer-user interaction. Because it is an abstract concept, many existing definitions are hard to understand without a solid background in Human-Centered Computing. The current definitions do not involve examples or comparisons between real environments. Our definition attempts to address both of these issues by using simpler language and focusing on concrete examples. 

b.) Relationship of your Project to the Themes discussed in the Course
Throughout much of the class we have discussed the idea of meta-design and how it is used with today's technologies and websites. We have been linking a lot of the meta-design themes from the class to our projects, particularly some of themes discussed during lecture 9 given on 9/27. The lecture that day was on meta-design and how it is currently defined. We have used this definition to help come up with a newer and clearer definition of meta-design. Part of our research has also been on the idea of the turing tar pit, which was discussed in class during lecture 5 on 9/13. The SER model that was presented in lecture 10 on 9/29, relates to the theoretical process of meta-design. Lecture 11 on October 4th also relates to our project because designer and user contribute mutually instead of a one way system with the cultures of participation. This sharing is a result from "feasible spaces for social practice" (ie. environments) and the privileges granted to users. Lecture 12 on October 11th also has some relationship with our project with richer ecologies of participation, which shows that there are different levels of designers and users based on the environment.

8.) Characterization of the Individual Contributions
Our team has found that our most valuable ideas and discoveries have taken place during group discussions and meetings. Since we are working to create a very understandable definition, we have needed to have many conversations about what we do and do not understand about meta-design. We have spent a great deal of time presenting our own ideas, attempting to understand each other's thoughts, and challenging what we classify as meta-design. As such, our project has been developed very collaboratively. We meet at least once a week in person, and often post ideas or contributions to our group Google Wave. 

9.) Findings and Results so far
We have looked at the definition of meta-design on Wikipedia, which is the first place most people will look when trying to define meta-design. The article on Wikipedia is hard to understand, and it will not help anyone who is not thoroughly involved in the field of Human-Centered Computing. We realize that, realistically, the people who are creating meta-design sites will generally be people who do not have a lot of background in the field of Human-Centered Computing. They will be people who have a goal and an idea they are trying to execute. Therefore, there is a need for an accessible definition that is easy to understand.

In addition, while our initial goal was to determine whether meta-design environments are successful or not, we were unable to make black and white judgments based on how open a site is to meta-design. We determined that it is not better or worse to have a higher degree of user control. The only way to define whether or not a meta-designer was successful is to consider the goals of the designer in relation to how much privilege a user was given.

Keeping this in mind, we decided to make our own definition of meta-design, which addresses both of the issues we identified. Our definition should be accessible and easy to understand, but also should give meta-designers an impression of how much user control is appropriate for their purposes.

To aide in this definition, we created a spectrum of meta-design, along an access of mutability or user control. We placed meta-design environments and products along this spectrum by comparing them with each other. For example, we compared Facebook to MySpace and examined the feel of each environment, who is attracted to it, and related this to how much user control the environment allows. Facebook gives less user control and has a uniform layout, which creates a degree of comfort for users, since they know what to expect at each page or profile. MySpace, however, gives more creative liberty to users. This makes it less friendly for Facebook's broad user-base, but it is perfect for bands, since music can be easily added to MySpace pages.

10.) Further developments planned till the end of the semester
We are planning on quantifying our spectrum so that we have a basis and reasoning behind the placement of the environments or products. We will be relating our goals to match our spectrum. We are playing around with the idea of editing the Wikipedia page on meta-design (preferably at the beginning) and creating a "How to Apply Meta-Design Principles to Your Environment" for the web. We are also thinking of adding the survey and compare the results to our spectrum. A few more items might be placed in the spectrum. Upon finishing our project, we will have more references and have a complete main page for our project.

11.) References
"Metadesign." Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadesign . 26 September 2010.

Fischer, Gerhard. "Extending Boundaries with Meta-Design and Cultures of Participation." http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/papers/2010/nordichi-paper.pdf . Center for LifeLong Learning and Design, University of Colorado at Boulder, Fall 2010. 10 October 2010.

Fischer, Gerhard, Hal Eden, and Holger Dick. Lecture 5: "Less is More: Human Computer Interaction and High-Functionality Applications." http://xwiki.cs.colorado.edu/bin/download/HCCF2010/Lecture 5/L5-buxton-less-is-more-Sept13.pdf . Center for LifeLong Learning and Design, University of Colorado at Boulder, Fall 2010. 26 September 2010.

Fischer, Gerhard, Hal Eden, and Holger Dick. Lecture 8: "Design Methodologies." http://xwiki.cs.colorado.edu/bin/download/HCCF2010/Lecture 8/L8-design-method-sept22.pdf . Center for LifeLong Learning and Design, University of Colorado at Boulder, Fall 2010. 10 October 2010.

Fischer, Gerhard, Hal Eden, and Holger Dick. "Lecture 9: Meta-Design: A Framework for the Future of End-User Development." http://xwiki.cs.colorado.edu/bin/download/HCCF2010/Lecture 9/L9-meta-design-sept27.pdf . Center for LifeLong Learning and Design, University of Colorado at Boulder, Fall 2010 . 28 September 2010.

Fischer, Gerhard, Hal Eden, and Holger Dick. Lecture 10: "The Seeding, Evolutionary Growth, Reseeding (SER) Model." http://xwiki.cs.colorado.edu/bin/download/HCCF2010/Lecture 10/L10-SER-Sept29.pdf . Center for LifeLong Learning and Design, University of Colorado at Boulder, Fall 2010. 10 October 2010.

Fischer, Gerhard, Hal Eden, and Holger Dick. Lecture 11: "Cultures of Participation." http://xwiki.cs.colorado.edu/bin/download/HCCF2010/Lecture 11/L11-cultures-of-part-Oct4.pdf . Center for LifeLong Learning and Design, University of Colorado at Boulder, Fall 2010. 10 October 2010.

Fischer, Gerhard, Hal Eden, and Holger Dick. Lecture 12: "Richer Ecology of Participation." http://xwiki.cs.colorado.edu/bin/download/HCCF2010/Lecture 12/L12-richer-ecologies.pdf . Center for LifeLong Learning and Design, University of Colorado at Boulder, Fall 2010. 10 October 2010.