World Leaders Proposal Community Click here to go back to website
September 24, 2014, 02:26:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: SMF - Just Installed!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: How can the internet help us make better collective decisions?  (Read 7885 times)
Andy
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +61/-0
Posts: 128


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2012, 06:08:39 PM »

Thanks Admin.

Hi Stephen, as you mention, I'd much prefer that the ranking system pushes "bad" proposals to the bottom rather than government weeding them out (to avoid any bias).
Your mention of tags is very interesting. Here are a few ideas:

A supplementary way of presenting the range of Initiatives could be some sort of cloud, the most supported presented larger.
Another supplementary presentation method for inter-related Initiatives could also be a cloud.
And I was wondering if software could convert our tabular format to a mind-map type format.

These ideas are inspired by this, amongst others
http://interactivedemocracy.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/picture-data.html

I haven't thought about this much, but I wonder if tags and links could be utilised to allow users to view the system in these alternative ways to help them navigate it.
I don't think this should be our primary design focus at the moment, but maybe something that we could facilitate in the future by our design choices now.

Cheers,
Andy.
Logged
Stephen
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +86/-0
Posts: 228



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: May 19, 2012, 06:02:19 PM »

I am currently investigating methods of displaying information or in our case (for the ID Website) a list of initiatives that show the most popular, or important (ranked) As Andy pointed out, there are much more interesting and accessible ways to provide a list of initiatives prioritized in some manner. One method is a Tag Cloud.

A Tag Cloud is a simple way to display lots of categories or words and their relative popularity regarding the context of which it could be used. The biggest words are the ones that would be the most popular, so not only are users given a visual reference, it is directly accessible because the words themselves are part of the visual design. This could be one way to utilize a more diverse/alternative way to offer a list of initiatives for our ID Website design. More examples coming soon.

Oh I just thought too, looking at the example image, words above a certain size would be in presented in different colours, maybe this could reflect the validity of them as well as the popularity/priority.

Remember, the Tag Cloud would appear within a category - ie: Environment. Click on Environment and the user is taken to the Tag Cloud, which displays all the initiatives pertaining to the chosen category.

I think maybe the actual category list could be a conventional table?





* tagcloud.gif (21.74 KB, 400x267 - viewed 98 times.)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 06:08:18 PM by Stephen » Logged

The internet offers us something great: the ability to collaborate on our global situation. Communication is always under rated.
Stephen
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +86/-0
Posts: 228



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2012, 01:34:03 PM »

Ive got a bit of a plan for design here, In about 2 weeks, I will present here a visual design on how we could utilize information design to achieve optimum useability for the ID Website.

A quick rundown:

The Initiatives Categories which is the different types of initiatives like Environment, Health etc will be in table format, nothing fancy.

With in each category, we could have a Tag Cloud to quickly identify the most popular and important initiatives.

For individual initiatives, we could display a time line of how the initiative evolved and the arguments and points brought up in chronological order.

Should be posted here in mid June.  Wink
Logged

The internet offers us something great: the ability to collaborate on our global situation. Communication is always under rated.
Andy
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +61/-0
Posts: 128


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2012, 06:34:13 PM »

Great stuff, Stephen.

I was wondering if we should have some way of voting approval or disapproval of the evidence or point being made along the lines of:
Heresay/Testimony, Unproven/Proven, MP approval/disapproval. This would enable a user to filter the debate, which could be useful if there are a vast number of points being made.

What do you think? Could such a filter introduce a type of bias?

Cheers,
Andy.
Logged
Stephen
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +86/-0
Posts: 228



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: May 24, 2012, 07:01:51 PM »

Hi Andy,

On the contrary, I think your idea adds usefulness and a much higher degree of validity to the voting of points being made. There is no bias at all, if a user wants to examine the points that are MP approved then they have that option. I think such a versatile, evidence based examination of the points being made could only increases the electorates ambition to put forth well informed points/initiatives.

It may also negate the need for the coloured links which could be tricky to implement.

Great Stuff!
Logged

The internet offers us something great: the ability to collaborate on our global situation. Communication is always under rated.
Andy
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +61/-0
Posts: 128


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2012, 08:06:25 PM »

Another thought is that, if citizens' Interactive Democracy identities were linked to a register of qualifications (even though they remain anonymous to their peers), this could be factored in to approval/disapproval ratings. So, for example, it may be possible to analyse health care initiatives based on the ratings from doctors or scientists or accountants - whatever the user chooses.
Apart from allowing individual citizens to analyse the debate in different ways this could also be useful to journalists and politicians. The journalists may provide interesting analysis in their reporting which could fuel the debate and the politicians may use the analysis to help them narrow the referenda choices at the end of the process.

What do you reckon? Scope for bias?

Cheers, Andy.
Logged
Stephen
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +86/-0
Posts: 228



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: May 25, 2012, 08:43:07 AM »

Ahhh, so for example, if a user was looking over an initiative such as health care reform, they (the user) have the option to see what the doctors and nurses are saying about it. They then could compare this grouping of points with other types of professionals such as scientists or retired people.

You might have something here! One of the things I have been trying to advocate in ID is the importance of ideas and opinions of those people within the very profession a political debate or policy change is taking place. Who better qualified to discuss possible changes or reforms to their workplace then the very people who work in that environment on a daily basis?

I really dont know how to handle or predict the scope for bias, I am thinking that the methodical, target focussed advantages of ID could negate any type of bias presenting itself. I mean with your previous idea of having voting approval in clearly marked labels of validity (Heresay/Testimony, Unproven/Proven, MP approval/disapproval.) obviously no-one would be immune to this scrutiny.
Logged

The internet offers us something great: the ability to collaborate on our global situation. Communication is always under rated.
Andy
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +61/-0
Posts: 128


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: May 25, 2012, 07:00:59 PM »

Now that you feed it back to me it sounds quite reasonable. I guess that if we leave the debate completely open but allow users to filter it in ways that they deem suitable, we are not introducing bias.
By the way, maybe we could still use colour coding for types of evidence (Heresay/Testimony, Unproven/Proven, MP approval/disapproval) but based on the votes of approval. For example, if there are more votes for Heresay, Unproven or MP disapproval then they may be indicated in red, Testimony in amber, Proven in green?

I've just realised that we may need some other categories. Some time ago I researched this (though I'm sure that the legal profession will have whole treaties on this subject) and categorised the different types as:

Anecdotal (Heresay)
Testimonial
Analogical
Statistical
Empirical

Perhaps analogical evidence (like the comparison of direct democracy with judge and jury) should be voted as good analogy/bad analogy; good analogy resulting in an amber colour, bad analogy resulting in a red colour.
The statistical and empirical evidence may be lumped together with a vote on proven/unproven. Users may point out the fallacy of some statistics as a counter-point.

Cheers Andy.
Logged
Stephen
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +86/-0
Posts: 228



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: May 26, 2012, 01:32:20 PM »

Yep definitely, using colour coding for types of evidence would be integral to the design. Heresay, Unproven, MP disapproval would naturally appear in red with the others - Testimony in amber and Proven in green. This gives an immediate feedback for users to pick and choose which initiatives and points/counter points are of sound reasoning.

This gives me lots to think about when I design the visual elements in two weeks time. The most demanding element design wise will be the individual initiatives themselves.

So to re-cap, each initiative will be displayed as a timeline, with all the points for and against displayed chronologically. Each for and against point will display the validity of that point by grouping the arguments as Heresay/Testimony, Unproven/Proven, MP approval/disapproval.

This gives the user a way to filter the debate and allow for unbiased, informed voting.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 01:34:23 PM by Stephen » Logged

The internet offers us something great: the ability to collaborate on our global situation. Communication is always under rated.
Andy
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +61/-0
Posts: 128


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: May 26, 2012, 10:22:43 PM »

I'm having trouble visualising your time line, but I guess it'll become apparent in due course. I imagine that the points could be listed in chronological order or ranked as having the most support or filtered by proven etc. The user could select how they want the display to work and how they want the filters to operate. Maybe the default would be chronological(?)
I was thinking that each point may have a counter point button which could bring up the pertinent arguments against it and the "Interesting Points", and also provide the user with the opportunity to add a Counter Point or Interesting Point. All the counter and interesting points could be collated and listed separately (chronologically or filtered as above) in a table format alongside the "For" points, too.
I guess there's a danger that this may get too complicated but, on the upside, by providing different ways of viewing the discussion we may actually introduce more diversity, as not everyone will view it all in the same way. (I consider diversity to be a good thing.)
Thanks Sephen. I'm going to be off-line for a week or so, but will be in-touch when I get back.
Cheers,
Andy.
Logged
Stephen
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +86/-0
Posts: 228



View Profile
« Reply #40 on: May 27, 2012, 10:54:33 AM »

Hi Andy, take a look at these mock ups I did when you get back, the first design shows our new filter idea in place and the second image is just a close up of the points showing the Heresay/Testimony, Unproven/Proven, MP approval/disapproval validity markers alongside each point.

Each point also has a "Counter Point" option that if the user clicks on, they will have the option to create a counter point even if there is existing ones. How well the counter point is recieved will be taken care of by the website users which needs critical mass (more on critical mass later)

The filter buttons are categorized as Rank, validity (proven) and chronological - can you think of any more filter options?

A white box appears around the currently selected filter to give the user visual feedback and to provide reference and confirmation of the filter selection.

Also I realised we are missing the "VOTE" button!! Where do we put the option to vote for or against the initiative? I am thinking it could be after the user has clicked on at least 2 for and against points? That way the user has at least had a read of the points on both sides of the debate. Looking forward to your input.  Smiley


« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 10:20:27 AM by Stephen » Logged

The internet offers us something great: the ability to collaborate on our global situation. Communication is always under rated.
Andy
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +61/-0
Posts: 128


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: June 07, 2012, 08:00:35 PM »

Hi Stephen,
It's looking good!
I was thinking about the principle of Independence, taken from The Wisdom of Crowds. It seems to me that by providing users the opportunity to analyse the debate in various ways we could help provide a mix of views that, taken together could produce better decisions. This notion leads me to two thoughts: that voters shouldn't have to read the debate before voting (they may well have done their own research on the subject, but even if they are voting on gut instinct The Wisdom of Crowds suggests this is OK so long as there are sufficient other diverse opinions); and that the debate lists should be presented in a random order until the user selects a filter they want to use.
I was wondering if the filters should offer the broad categories: Chronology, Geography, Approval-by and Validity. Approval-by may encompass filters for age, qualification, MP only and sex. Geography may be postcode or region. Chronology by latest or earliest. Validity by type of evidence. It maybe necessary to use a drop down menu which could be added to easily without disrupting the rest of the layout. It would also be useful to be able to select more than one filter.
These filters may not only foster better anlysis of the debate by MPs when they come to distil it into law, it would give the media many opportunities to give their own slant and would allow cmpaigners to modify their message to target certain demographics.
What do you think about adding a list of Interesting Points and Questions? Should these be buttons alongside Counter Points?... Maybe the filters should also offer "List Questions" and "List Interesting Points", too, as a "Type" filter?
I was also wondering about the design principle of analog displays: for example, at the moment we have "MP approved" in green and "MP disapproved" in red, but there may be the situation that 301 MPs approve and 299 MPs disapprove; so maybe the "MP approved should show a smidgeon more green than red, as a sliding bar. If the balance went the other way the wording could switch to MP disapproved with slightly more red than green. The same principle could apply to other types of evidence.
I think you are doing a cracking job with this. Sorry if I'm over complicating things. Let me know your view.
Cheers,
Andy.
Logged
Stephen
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +86/-0
Posts: 228



View Profile
« Reply #42 on: June 08, 2012, 12:39:36 PM »

Hi Andy,

We are getting to the stage of this collaborative effort, where static pictures are no longer enough, so I have started on the real thing.

I am proud to introduce...

The Interactive Democracy Website Project

Proudly brought to you by Stephen and Andy.







-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This opens up many opportunities such as the discussion and testing of drop down menus and filter options. With a live version, we can visit the site and test all the various functionality as it gets built. The beauty of this is that there is a more visual and interactive feedback and therefore each suggestion or new idea we throw around can be tested in the actual context (online interactive website).

This could serve as an open source project, where anyone can offer their expertise such as database coding, information design and security software. If it gets to a stage where I cannot get certain functionality to work, I can "fake it" or leverage a third party.

Andy, your idea of an analogue colour coding system for MP approval etc is an excellent one. I think this is possible through a fairly simple algorithm.

 if the difference between approval and disapproval is less than 10 votes, show (link colour) #546788 (hex value)

else difference > 20 (link colour) #546 688

and so forth.

It shouldn't take long to get up to speed with the live website, then we can really start getting into the nittty gritty of what would make a successful ID website. Meanwhile, please keep suggesting ideas, we need to over think this, never think that you are over complicating things as a design project like this needs as much deliberation as possible.



Logged

The internet offers us something great: the ability to collaborate on our global situation. Communication is always under rated.
Andy
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +61/-0
Posts: 128


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: June 08, 2012, 11:47:30 PM »

That looks great, Stephen.
Can I link to it from the Interactive Democracy blog?
Cheers,
Andy.
Logged
Stephen
Full Member
***

Consensus Standing: +86/-0
Posts: 228



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2012, 08:26:32 AM »

But of course!  Wink
Logged

The internet offers us something great: the ability to collaborate on our global situation. Communication is always under rated.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!