Forum .LRN Q&A: Re: .LRN Gardens
First, what we're talking about is much more global than our mostly bite-sized, ownable portlets or bits of functionality. Its nature and scope might better be considered to be on the level of the localization project.
Second, few among us are trained in design, we are programmers, and so when we build something that works we look right beyond the simple graphical elements to marvel instead at one or another display of powerful functionality, saying, "that's totally cool" when, to other eyes, it is not clear which button to push and in what order.
Again, please don't get me wrong: I think programming a marvel wrought out of pure air by wizards, and I want to know how to do what they do.
Why does does often seem to come at the end? Working on the form, we came up with all sorts of lists of new functionality, but we did not exchange a bunch of sketches or build elaborate user scenarios or personas. It is as if design is considered decorative, that functions lie deeper -- and having studied databases and marvelled at how we move things back from our tcl to our sql files, I almost believe it.
Design work appears to be proceeding mostly on the level of packages, and my impression is that individual developers get to it when they have reached a certain the limit, or when they are hired to build a site, at which point they hire someone else. In a curious way, it is as if, by hiring all these graphic designers on a site-by-site basis, we have not brought either their their designs nor their know-how back into the community. But it means we have a css system operating on the package level, which surely increased design costs.
The result is an uneven experience, tremendous usability problems, and additional costs to find remedy. For instance, the calendar in dotlrn 2.0 attracts the eye powerfully because it offers an intense combination of color and proportion. Dirk and others tightened it all up real nice and slick, so when I get there I feel like I am in a cool place and mostly know what I'm supposed to do. But when I go to upload a file or add something to the forum, I find myself, design-wise, in a completely different universe: I am looking at lists, white space, and various widgets floating about such that I actually have to read and interpret the text: the design is not helping me at all -- sorta like the way Donald Normal talks about the touch-tone telephone having lost its center to the point that no manner of documentation can help you find your way.
Deeper still, try reducing a community page to just one forum and the file storage module, like so many for small groups, count all the navigational and other elements and imagine some sort of signal to noise ratio: in this case, our design is incredibly noisy.
I need help with this question because we in the UAB are trying to develop a sense of priorities and proportion, and we are trying to figure out how best to proceed and even begin to play a leadership role. We have spent some time working on the forums, and forums interest many of us and many of our users a lot. But there are a lot of interesting projects, like assessment, that have good constituencies working for them for good reasons. I'm wondering if, instead of lobbying for one piece of functionality, we might better work on those elements of the infrastructure that affect all.
So my question is: is the problem with css/xhtml bigger than our desktops, something more "global" than most of us typically work with, and so become a task that lies sorta beyond our general expertise, interest, and organizational form? Wouldn't a refactoring for css/xhtml both help reduce graphics design consultant costs (fewer places to make global changes) AND make Dotlrn look much better out of the box AND be something that would benefit everyone?
You see what mischief I am up to: what do you think?
I think you've got your head screwed on right.
Basically, what we need is what's called a "style guide" that outlines global interface elements, how they're used, and an initial design for them.
Then that needs to be translated into our default HTML and CSS.
The goal should be that the interactional elements are so solid that you generally don't want to change the HTML, but can change your fonts, colors, and detailed design through CSS alone. At least for most sites.
And yes, this is a global effort, which is going to require coordination, but more than that, I think it requires someone who knows what they're doing: An information architect and a designer, both experienced.
/Lars
