MakeShiftCrew Project Main Page

^{Testing the prototype of MSC Project 2. This will be the location of our final product so portions of this web page will continually be changing and polished until the end of this semester... =D}

The Spectrum of Meta-Design Environments: The Correlation of Openness and Purpose

Abstract

We propose an extended definition of meta-design which relates the intent of the meta-designer to the degree of allowed user freedom. 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.

Keywords: meta-design, continuum of mutability, SER model, turing tar pit, Web 2.0

I. Introduction
In this paper, we will compare and contrast the existing definitions of meta-design with our augmented definition of meta-design. Our initial purpose for researching meta-design was to accurately evaluate the success of several different meta-design environments. We searched for a useful definition of meta-design to help us with our qualifications. Using the definitions we found, as soon as we determined that one environment was a success, another environment was necessarily deemed a failure. We objected to this black and white judgment. We kept finding that it was not the case that one site was definitively better than the others, but that designers had used varying degrees of user-mutability to achieve different goals. Open source may be the ultimate meta-design, since users have full control over the source code of the product. We determined, however, that meta-design is about giving users the power to affect the feel of the environment, in any big or small way. The users were given some sort of means to make changes, and they had the choice of whether or not to make them. These changes have the power to affect the environment for other users. We therefore decided to create a spectrum of meta-design, or a scale of mutability, with the purpose of informing meta-designers about what level of mutability is appropriate for their purposes. We also determined that, instead of using jargon and more definitions to create the spectrum, we would define using examples of other products.

II. Existing Definition of Meta-Design
In meta-design, the conventional design of a product is different in the involvement of designers and users at the beginning and end. Traditionally, the designers and users were separated at two extremities so that the creation of the product only involved designers and users only used the product after it was released. Over time, there may be shifts in human behavior within society that require a more useful product so designers will eventually meet again to make a better product.

For meta-design, the boundary that separates the interaction of the designer and user when designing a product is broken. Thus, the power is distributed among the designers and users at design time. After the product is released, the users utilize the benefits of the product until human behavior changes in society. At this point, designers and users can either continue to modify the product in order to satisfy the changes within society, or discontinue the manufacture/use of the product and start from the beginning again using remnants of the original product.

[insert traditional and meta-design timeline from lecture 9 that illustrates the process of creating a product or create a new one...]

III. Alternate Definition of Meta-Design
It is not useful to measure the success of a meta-design environment. Depending on the goal of a project, different degrees of user-designer interaction are needed. Therefore, meta-design can be described using a continuum, going from a rigidly defined end-product to a completely malleable end-product. One side of the spectrum is not more correct than another, but every meta-design environment falls somewhere in this scale of mutability.

IV. Comparison of Similar Sites with Different Spectrum Positions
To demonstrate how different levels of mutability lead to different end results and therefore lend themselves to different design goals, it is best to consider some comparisons along the spectrum.

[insert final draft of spectrum here]

Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter
The successful social networking sites are excellent examples of how differing levels of user freedom create different environments. MySpace is very open. Users can customize their pages in endless ways. People can change their backgrounds, they can make music play. They can create their environment according to proper design principles, or they can use near-black text on a black background, making their page near unreadable. Facebook, however, allows for a lot less customization of profiles. Everyone has the same layout on their profile page. People add different applications to their pages, but the overall structure, color, and layout of the pages remains generally the same. This gives Facebook a different user experience than MySpace. Both sites are definitely meta-design, for they both provide tools for the user to make changes to the environment, and the changes a user makes greatly affects the overall feel of the environment. If people contributed nothing, or never contributed pictures and videos and links, Facebook would not be the site it is today. Its evolution is dependent on the contribution of the users as well as that of the meta-designers. The same reasoning goes for MySpace.

Another very popular social networking site is Twitter. We have deemed Twitter a less mutable site than Facebook. On Twitter, one can change her background, so in that way it is like MySpace. But, the user content is packaged into short, brief information updates from users. Twitter is clean, quick, and easy. People can get information about a wide range of people and organizations in a snap. (need more info about twitter)

Facebook is one of the most-trafficked social networks today. There are, indubitably, many factors that have contributed to its success. We postulate that one of the reasons for the widespread success was the balance Facebook chose for user mutability.

People know what to expect at each person's Facebook page. The uniformity of the pages made it easy to create the Newsfeed to show changes made to pages or applications. There is no chance of loud music turning on once you go to someone's page. It is a comfortable environment, but people can still communicate what is on their mind, what happened this weekend, their political views, and their videos to all of their friends. People can create Facebook applications and make a lot of changes, but the surprises a Facebook user experiences will be soley the content of the posted videos, statuses, links, and pictures, not the pages themselves. The consistency of Facebook makes it easy to use.

V. Discussion and Analysis

A. Theoretical Meta-Design Process
Meta-design is best described under the Seeding, Evolutionary growth, and Reseeding (SER) model, which is similar to the life cycle of a potted plant. The first step of the SER model requires a multifaceted architecture created by designers and users to provide a foundation for an underdesigned, seeded idea or product before distribution. This is similar to providing a bed of soil for the seed to grow in a pot.

After distribution of this seed, evolutionary growth requires users be involved and provide information. Throughout this step, users experience deficiencies and limitations in the seed which require either the designer or user to remedy the problems. Incremental modifications by users help support the seeded idea by fostering evolutionary growth. The degree of these modifications are dependent upon how much access a user was given when designers were initially creating the architecture. User's involvement is critical in the success of the seed, otherwise the seed fails to develop and is eventually obsolete. Looking back at the seed embedded in the pot's soil, the evolutionary growth stage is similar to a gardener cultivating and providing the necessary nutrients for the plant to grow. The conditions of the environment may require the gardener to buy additional tools from stores to assist in the plant's growth such as a bigger pot, mulch, scissors to trim weeds wrapping around the plant, or using a stake and rope to hold the plant upright. Without the gardener or store's assistance, the plant will die off due to negligence.

After a certain point, there may be changes in human behavior within society or significant deficiencies that require reseeding. During this stage of reseeding, designers can decide to leave the original seed alone by letting it remain active or terminating it. In either case, designers will take parts of the original seed and any of its extensions in order to start all over again with a new seed. Some of the reasons behind initiating this step can be due to shifts in technology requiring substantial changes in the infrastructure of the seed, significant limitations that require enhancements, lack of incremental modifications, or changes in human behavior that detracts from using the seed. In the potted plant analogy, this could mean that the flower might require a transplant to a better environment to support it or be undergoing changes beyond the gardeners control. If the seed was an annual flower like petunias, then it has outgrown its use over its life time and needs to be replanted from its seeds. If the seed was a perennial like tulips, the gardener could use the offspring to plant more tulips while still caring for the original seed.

B. Turing Tarpit: Trade-offs in Infrastructures Granting User Privileges

VI. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

References

Authors of this document are the MakeShift Crew:

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