Moving Threads in a Forum.
Moving threads would be a nice feature to have. Even better, I would think, is to design the interface so that everyone uses it well in the first place. To this end Ive fiddled with the Forum interface.
The problem I would like to solve is that many users here are clicking first on the new thread link instead of opening up an old one so that they are ending up with a dozen new threads on the same topic instead of responding, one after the other, in one thread.
In part, this is a conceptual problem in that some of our students are unfamiliar with the technology. It may also be the case that some have learned to upload text files and homework files and so are used to adding objects one after another. There may be other reasons, but I thought the first thing I might do is examine the Forum page design and see what I might do about it.
Sure enough, the link to start a new thread appeared at the top of the page, was centered, and for the uninitiated there was little indication that the underlined thread titles below were links to be clicked. Indeed, the threads were titled "Subject" and not even "Thread".
So far Ive solved it by moving things around, like this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the Kolloquium Forum!
To view and add to a current discussion Thread, click on its link below.
You can also Search for a Thread: [input box]
To begin a new Thread, click here[underlined link].
You have requested notification for Kolloquium Forum. You may unsubscribe[underlined link]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heres the explanation.
1. I've used the word "Thread" three times, capitalizing it as a thing, and changing the word "Subject" in the table to "Thread" because "thread" is the among the defining features to forums, as I understand them, distinct from a homework "drop box", a survey "form", etc. , and repetition and supportive graphics sometimes work better than explanation.
2. Right away I pointed to the Threads below, identified them as links, and told people to go there, as in, do not pass go, do not collect $200. In this way I would get most of the people most of the time to the place where most of them want to go: adding to an existing thread.
3. I've moved the search box formerly floating off in outer right space to a place immediately below the instructions to go for the link, to suggest they are of the same kind, and used the word "also", indicated that they are two ways to do the same thing. If I were offering advice on logic, Id suggest that someone write a a conditional statement to turn the search box on only when there are more items in the last than one can comfortably scan without having to scroll down.
4. To deter people from starting new subjects recklessly, Ive moved it from being centered to being but the third item in a list of three (which Ive aligned flush left), and so clearly subordinating it. Now, I dont like the solution of click here, but I do want to suggest that one think twice before heading off on a frolic of ones own. In this sense, I used "new" in the hope that users would apply the following criteria: is what I have to say different from what is being talked about?
5. I've put the notification link at the end thinking that people might read through the list at first, and later know just to do the first or third thing most of the time. I have left the words notification and "subscribe/unsubscribe" as is, thinking one sorta explains the other.
Im curious to know what others might think of this suggestion and this approach particularly as I am interested in organizing a set of protocols for our new User Advisory Group. Also, might someone tell me who might now be working on the forum and might actually be concerned with such things? Or is the best way to find out to go to the OpenACS bug list and see who has worked on the Forums?
