Design activity #3: envisioning
In this activity, you will—rigorously and systematically!—imagine the first glimmerings of your collection design into existence. In essence, you will perform a more extended, informed version of the Break the Rules! activity from the second week of class to begin articulating some ideas for what your collection encompasses, how it is structured, and how people might interact with it.
Before you commence the envisioning activity, you should have performed enough of the three learning activities—learning about the general subject area of sustainability, getting familiar with the video options in the source library, and obtaining some basic information about how potential users understand sustainability and what their initial expectations for a video library on this topic might encompass—to have an initial sense of:
- The position on sustainability that you want the collection to represent.
- The general types of videos that you see as forming your collection.
- Basic audience characteristics: beliefs, values, expectations.
- The set of features available to you through the open video toolkit environment (such as specifying the browsing categories on the left side of the home page, the ability to form and annotate subcollections, the ability to feature particular videos on the home page, the metadata with which you describe each video, and so on).
Do not worry! The ideas that you have now may certainly change. (In fact, this activity may cause them to change, perhaps drastically. Or perhaps slightly. You will see.)
It may seem a wee bit odd to describe how characters of your invention might interact with your online collection when you don’t even know what your online collection is, how you’re going to describe it, what the information design is going to look like. Indeed, it is weird. But just let go and have fun with it. Think of it like writing some stories, because that’s what it is.
Step 1: create some characters (or personas) to narrate your stories (or scenarios).
The articles that we read this week advance different perspectives on conceptualizing the user (as described in the articles originating in human-computer interaction) or the audience (as described in the articles originating in rhetoric and composition). In your personas, or character descriptions, try to assemble your own synthesis of:
- The data-driven approach of Pruitt and Grudin.
- The character-focused ideas of Nielsen.
- The implied audience described by Park and Jasinski.
Like any good character in a story, your personas should seem like real people in the context of the story situation, or scenario. But like any creation, your personas will need to be more ideal than real in some ways, or else they won’t seem realistic.
At this point, create two or three personas that represent different possibilities within the audience you would currently like your collection to target. Recall that the project description in the syllabus specifies that your audience should be:
adults who live in Austin, who have a general, mild interest in learning more about sustainability and how they might adapt their activities to be more sustainable. They are not, however, making current efforts in this area beyond using services that have been made available within their daily lives and that require minimal adjustment to their typical routines, such as putting household recyclable materials into the city-provided bins, instead of into the trash
However, you can make this audience more specific in any way that you like.
Aim for a few paragraphs of description for each persona. Your descriptions should attempt to briefly encapsulate a well-rounded character: beliefs, values, goals, history. You want enough information that you can imagine the persona in a situation with your collection, and the persona, if you will, will lead the way in showing you how the interaction might proceed, given the details you confront the persona with.
Potential pitfalls to avoid: blank slates or stereotypes, as described in Nielsen’s article; too much extraneous detail that has nothing to do with the story you’re setting up. No “Hollis is a 26-year-old bicycling barista who plays banjo in a struggling alt-country band and enjoys a few pints of Live Oak at the Dog and Duck of an evening”; that’s no real person, that’s just “young Austin dude.” Make sense?
Step 2: put your characters in action with your (nonexistent) collection and see what happens.
Okay, so now you have people. See what they do!
This may seem a little bit like stepping out over the edge of a cliff. To make it easier, start by writing a few paragraphs where you, in your role as the author, lay out a candidate vision for your collection: your rhetorical goals and the position you hope to articulate in the collection; some ways that you might implement the collection to further those goals. Think of this like the paragraphs you wrote as part of the Breaking the Rules game (you know, like the example of the Epicure’s Retreat collection with the fireplace and cookies, and cookbooks described like romance novels). When you do this, you might keep in mind the features available through the open video toolkit software and see how those apply. But try not to let that unduly limit your fantastic ideas.
Now take one of your characters and begin imagining. What does, for example, Persona Sofia do when confronted with the digital video library Beyond Global Warming: Resources for a Truly Sustainable Society? Well, first of all, create the back story: how does Sofia get to the collection in a way that is plausible for her character (we might say, in what types of rhetorical situation will the collection be deployed)? If the way you set up the action makes sense, then Sofia, as a character, should “tell” you where to go next. Based on what you think Sofia might do, you will then have to articulate your plans for what the collection might look like in much more detail. (Wait, you have plans for the collection? You do now! Let it ride!)
By the way, don’t just do this in your head; write it out. Really, it’s important to give your ideas flesh that way.
As you continue to imagine the course of your persona’s interaction with your (nonexistent! I know! It’s strange!) collection, pay particular attention to potential conflicts and failures. If it the story demands a turn such as “After getting zero results yet again, Sofia gives a humpf and slams her computer shut,” or “Sustaina-what?!” let it take you there. This is brilliant information. What would have to change for that not to happen? What would facilitate success for Sofia? What does success mean for Sofia? Is it possible for Sofia to achieve success without your own rhetorical goals being advanced? What to do in that case? How can everyone be happy?
Potential pitfalls to avoid: determining the action or the ending in advance; mixing up your goals with your character’s goals; letting your character determine your imaginary collection’s features and abandoning your own ideas instead of your adapting your collection to make it more likely that Sofia comes around to your way of thinking.
For your first attempts, aim for one interaction with each persona. If you are energized, try two interactions with each persona: one success (whatever that turns out to mean) and one failure. But don’t force these outcomes; it may take several iterations to see what needs to happen (or not happen) for you to get there.
For next week’s class on February 11: bring your two (or three) attempts and personas and associated scenarios.
As you proceed with the project, you will have multiple versions of these scenarios (and perhaps of the personas as well). Keep all your versions; this is great documentation of your evolving thinking. When it comes to turning in your final product, though, you will submit just the final version of your scenarios, one that is nicely synchronized with your design strategy brief and “sketch.”
Persona Examples
Examples, not models!
Persona 1: Jason
Jason is used to a pretty traditional American diet that centers around meat. Jason has read a lot about the use of hormones, antibiotics, and so forth in meat, and he was quite interested in the mad cow scare and in recent articles about the level of mercury in fish, particularly farmed salmon. He had been eating a lot of fish from Costco, thinking that it was easy, relatively cheap (cheaper than going out for sushi, at least, although he is always down for some eel and avocado rolls when there’s money in the wallet), and healthy. This kind of news concerns him. He tries not to eat ground beef and doesn’t buy much red meat, but he does like a bacon cheeseburger now and then, even though he has some idea it’s like eating poison. It’s a tasty treat, damn it! Jason is also quite concerned about global warming and other sustainability issues. He is convinced that we need to reduce energy consumption and make other life changes or the world will be irrevocably harmed. He doesn’t want to leave an impossible mess for later generations; he wants to “be part of the solution.” He recycles, he uses compact fluorescent light bulbs, he uses public transportation when possible. He would like to start a garden, but he feels intimidated. He would also like to eat even less meat, or even (mayyyyybeee) go vegetarian, but he’s not the best cook and doesn’t think he could handle eating salad every day. Cooking vegetables seems to require so much chopping and use of herbs and things, it seems complicated.
Scenario 1
Jason encounters the Moral Vegetarian Library as a link from a sustainability blog. The blog post called the library’s Web site “a really neat resource that makes a case for long-term sustainability as requiring compassion, not just consideration of effects.” Huh. Jason clicks.
The library’s home page, a soft green with subtle typography and design, is calm and soothing. A message says that the site promotes vegetarianism as one aspect of moral, compassionate living, and that the site provides access to resources that illuminate various aspects of this position. Not all the resources are online, but a physical library is open three afternoons a week for study and meditation, and books can be used there. A link invites users to browse the collection. Jason decides to give it a go.
Jason sees a set of categories, obviously links. Under the heading Morality, Humanity, and Vegetarianism, Jason sees subcategories for Moral Standing of Animals, Duties Toward Others, and Compassionate Conduct – A Better Future for All. Another heading, History of Moral Vegetarianism, has links for Ancient Greek Thinkers, Hinduism, and Buddhism, as well as European Philosophers. Jason wonders momentarily if the library is run by Hare Krishnas or animal-rights activists, but he doesn’t get that sort of vibe. Still, Jason doesn’t trust most people who call themselves activists, and he doesn’t want to feel hoodwinked. He clicks Moral Standing of Animals to see if he’ll be treated to a barrage of explosive photos of flayed animals in the slaughterhouse. Instead, more categories are revealed: Personhood arguments, Basic dignity of life arguments, Compassion arguments, each with subcategories. The categories are explained with concise yet somehow scholarly definitions. The reading level is definitely more than 5th grade. Jason respects that.
Another link for each category invites users to see the resources associated with it. Jason decides to see what Personhood is all about. It sounds Buddhist. If Jason were religious, he would probably be Buddhist; one of his weird old dreams was to visit a Tibetan monastery.
He clicks to see the resources, and a brief list appears. The first few items seem appropriate for the philosophical novice, while the later ones seem a little technical and complicated. Wow, these guys are pretty serious, he thinks. I don’t see stuff about monks, but I had no idea that dead Germans debated the moral standing of animals. But how does this stuff relate to sustainability? The blog post mentioned the library in that context. Jason spies a search box and types in “sustainability.” The results that appear are sorted into the same categories that appeared on the first library page: Compassionate Conduct, Living as an Ethical Vegetarian. I guess it does make sense to think of respect for other beings as an element of sustainable living, Jason supposes. I’ve never thought about it that way before, but it’s an interesting perspective.
<Note that there is no ending to this scenario, really...the author began to realize that it all seemed a little fake....where would Jason really end up?>
Scenario 2 (after a number of revisions)
Jason encounters a link to the Ethical Vegetarian Resource Web site while reading a sustainability-focused blog. The blog post (which Jason initially found through Digg.com; Jason is an inveterate Web surfer, and he checks out Digg several times per day) noted that while it might not be uncommon to relate reduced meat consumption to sustainability, this site seems to take an interesting moral and ethical perspective on both those issues. Jason clicks, willing to spend a minute exploring. The site’s headline reads: “The Ethical Vegetarian: An Online Resource Library,” with a tag line that says “Living sustainably means living ethically.” The site appears to be organized according to questions: Why is it necessary to be vegetarian? What does it mean to be vegetarian? How have others approached these questions throughout the ages? How do I live as a vegetarian?
Under each question, a few categories are listed. Under Why is it necessary to be vegetarian?, the categories are:
The case for vegetarianism
Ethical reasons
Social reasons
Religious reasons
Personal reasons
The case against vegetarianism
Ethical reasons
Social reasons
Religious reasons
Personal reasons
Well, why is it necessary to be vegetarian? thinks Jason. I certainly agree that industrial agriculture causes harm, and it seems to be a good idea for everyone to reduce their meat consumption. But I don’t think we need to throw paint on people wearing fur coats; there are plenty of other activities that people do that are worse for the planet, like driving Hummers. What other kinds of ethical reasons might there be, besides animal-rights ones? Jason is feeling a little unsure about the site, but he clicks Ethical Reasons.
At the top of the page, a brief summary statement clarifies that a number of philosophical arguments lead to vegetarianism as an ethical duty, and the idea of animal rights is only one of many justifications. Each of the subcategories listed on the page represents one of those arguments. The site offers resources that relate to each argument type. Below this description, another set of categories appears:
Suffering of sentient beings
Animal suffering
Human suffering
Rights of animals as sentient beings
Moral duty against killing
Moral duty of planetary stewardship and global welfare
Attainment of happiness through virtuous living (virtue ethics)
Most of these categories have arrows that indicate they can be expanded; the category labels are also links. Below the categories, a list of links and other citations appear. These are general resources that don’t advocate one of the specific positions listed.
Glancing at the list of categories, Jason thinks, Yep, it’s all about animal rights...wait, human suffering? Attainment of happiness through virtuous living? Sounds crunchy... Still, Jason is curious enough to expand the categories for Human Suffering and uncovers:
Unequal distribution of resources
Poverty
Hunger
Poverty and hunger are reasons why we should ethically be vegetarians? How do they make that connection? Jason clicks the link for Unequal Distribution of Resources.
The page that appears looks like this:
Why is it necessary to be vegetarian?
Unequal distribution of resources
While many of us in the industrialized West enjoy abundant food, clothing, and shelter, the opposite is true for many in the third world. Although in the West, meat products have become affordable for almost everyone, in the third world, food itself might be a luxury. But if the resources used to provide cheap meat in the West were instead used to produce cereals and grains, there would be less overall hunger, less poverty, and less human suffering.
Broader categories:
Suffering of sentient beings
Subcategories:
Poverty
Hunger
Related categories:
Capitalism