>As to not consulting users, etc. - that too is hard to comprehend - since we sought reactions, ideas, comments, advice, etc., over and over, in diverse ways for months, and have actually never stopped doing so. We even put in whole forums for the purpose, wrote emails and solicited replies that way, etc.

Did you start consulting users before implementing the site?  If so, why didn’t you use an open source project?  Why wasn’t the development done in a more iterative fashion, so that the users would have a chance to get used to the features as soon as possible, and offer further feedback. 

>Anyhow...here are reactions to the first blogger's initial specifics, point by point...

>==

>> I.  The interface is clunky.  It has quite a few options, and a lot of work has been done, however, making it more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing would go a long way towards encouraging people to use it as a social tool.  I don't think you are going to get people involved in Zspace purely from a movement building perspective, because to be honest, I don't see it being that effective as a movement building or organizing tool.  It's a great source of information, but isn't quite there yet when it comes to networking.  So, until it becomes more practical, it needs to be fun.

>Saying something is clunky is not, well, very easy to relate to, honestly - because it points nowhere.

I think there are others who share this perspective (they showed that they understood by providing suggestions for improvement), and to be honest, I didn’t do a good job of explaining it because I thought it was self-evident. 

Here are a few examples:

1.  The menu to add photos only allows one to add a single photo at a time, so adding an album, which takes about 10 seconds on facebook, takes about 45 minutes on Zmag.  Please add the ability to add multiple photos.

2.  The album only shows 10 photos at a time, so I added a bunch of photos, to find that only 10 would be shown.  Please add the ability to add more than 10 photos to an album.

3.  The wiki has no security, so currently, when I go to add something, there is a bunch of spam, with no user content.  Please add security to the wiki so that it’s not over-run with spambots.

4.  Things like search are difficult to find, because they aren’t shown in a typical way (there is no search box next to search, which is something my eyes look for when I’m on a website.)  Please add a search box next to the search, or figure out another way to make it more visible.

5.  You can search for users by address, but not groups.  Why not?  Please add the ability to search for groups by geographic location in the same way that you allow us to search for users by geographic location.

6.  When replying to blogs, the messages get reformatted to remove paragraph pasting, which causes a nicely formatted reply to show up as a block of text.  (I’m going to stop using please, since it’s tiresome)  Formatting needs to be preserved.

7.  The mailing list function of groups only displays the last message that is sent.  It would be better for each group to have their own subforum, so that discussion threads can be reviewed by new users.  Maybe you could make it so that when a group is added, it automatically gets it’s own sub-forum.

8.  As I suggested to Chris Spannos, it may be a good idea to get a google search appliance rather than trying to roll your own.

9.  The interface limits users to only adding 10 photos for an album.  If it’s a space issue, then you should make users aware of how much space they are allowed to use.

10.  You should refer your web designer to the previously mentioned books on interface design.  This is an open-ended suggestion, I can’t tell you exactly what’s right.  However, I can say that you shouldn’t only be basing your layout on numbers of clicks to reach a certain area.  That’s extremely biased towards making life easier for those who are already familiar.  You are going to need to make tradeoffs, like adding an extra mouse click so that menus are organized better.  One method is by grouping like things together.  So, when creating a menu, try to organize things by a single axis.  i.e. US, Canada, Mexico… go together, but adding something like Audio/Video to the above choices would be confusing and unexpected.  If I’m looking for something, I may never get to Audio/Video, because my expectation from the first three things is that I’m looking at geographic locations.  Make sense?

>You mention you are a programmer. Excellent. Do a screen image of something better and we can take a look. That will be necessary, I think, because I just don't see how the tabbed menu system is clunky - or the left menu system - and they are the navigation tools.

I write software that processes terabytes of genomic data on a world class supercomputer with about 4000 online processors.  Our increase in data usage is 4 Terabytes per day.  Last year, we produced over 1,000,000 GB’s of new genomic data.  That said, I haven’t written a web page in 10 years.  The tools I use are for editing text files (vi, emacs,nedit), not slick user interface design apps.  The last user interface I designed was for an end user application (think windows applications, not web pages).   I’d rather not dig up a bunch of out of date web development tools for something that isn’t a serious development effort.  I can get my point across without designing a mock web page.  If needed, we can do that later.

>Clunky suggests slow - but they are not slow at all. Clunky suggests, perhaps, inefficient, but I don't see that either since you can get virtually anywhere in the site in two clicks - despite that it is so large. So I don't know what you mean.

What you describe, Michael, is one (extreme) end of an axis that spans all the way from power users who want to be able to get anywhere with the minimum amount of mouse clicks, and casual users, who don’t mind a few extra mouse clicks if it makes the software more intuitive and easier to use.  The reason you are at this end is self-evident.  You use the software every day, and have no issues with things being difficult to understand at first, since for you the most important aspect is maximum efficiency over a long period of time, not initial start-up costs.  What’s tragic, is that I doubt your approach is anywhere near what most Z users want.

Also, your response indicates that you think Zmag is designed for maximum efficiency.  Except, it’s not.  As I mentioned in the tool to add photos, there are areas that require an obnoxious number of mouse clicks to use (i.e. click, add photo, click, add photo, etc.)

>The admin features, however, I agree were clunky - or perhaps more accurately, a bit hard to find, and requiring some serious attention to use well - but they are now improved with quick edit, and will soon become much better...in many more ways.

Ok, we agree on this.

>Maybe I am not hearing well, but I am not sure what you think should be fun - the site technology won't be what is fun, or amusing, or insightful, or inspiring - it is just a vehicle. The content - which writers and sustainers offer, will be all those things, one hopes.

I’m not sure either.  I think the fun angle refers to the culture.  But, I think the interface kinds of feeds it, i.e. the categories are serious left issues.  I’m not sure this is a good idea if we want to encourage users to participate as much as possible.  You could address it by writing a commentary, (or I could).  But, I think it’s a hurdle. 

>When I look at the bios of people, which is part of the content that people provide, I am impressed and inspired. If people whose bios I have noticed were to offer up something more of themselves, with more people doing it, my guess is the current technology - much less the technology which is coming - would be fine.

I agree with this sentiment, in that it’s successful to the extent that people use it.  If a bunch of people were using it, then fine.  I use craig’s list, it’s about 100 times less sophisticated than Zmag, but it works, so why fix it?  My suggestions are in the context of our need to get more users.  If you think it’s more about the culture, then maybe we should focus our discussion on that.  I’m not against discussing culture if that’s what people think the issue is.

>> II.  The things that I really NEED it to do, it doesn't even address.  Here are my issues.  I've been on this site for 6 years.  I still don't know where a single member of zmag/zspace lives, and have no idea who is near by.

>Okay, good, I look forward to seeing things you would like to do that we don't address...

As mentioned in the 10 suggestions above, make it easy for me to add a geographic location to a group.  This would make it easy to create a group with local chapters.  i.e. IOPS, and then Saint Louis IOPS, etc.  Right now, we can create a group named Saint Louis IOPS, but I have no way of ensuring that users who are searching for groups in Missouri will find it.

>But this first one - is, well, odd. It may well be you don't know where anyone is from, but if so it is not because the site doesn't address it. If everyone enters their locale, anyone could search and find everyone near them. Videos show you how to do so, though, honestly, it is like any other form entry and search - it seems to me...

I missed the location search for users.  This is great, thank you, but we still need it for groups. 

>Soon the friends feature, chat, messaging, etc., will be much better - but they do all exist now.

I’m looking forward to it, and please keep it up.

>> The only time I've met other members of the community was at a life after capitalism conference 6 years ago.  I feel extremely isolated, and in my own community, I feel like I'm "the guy who read's zmag", not a member of a larger community or movement.

>I don't know where you live - but all a site can do, I would think, to help with your situation where you live is allow people to enter geographic and other such info, and then tp search for people near them. We have that - but we will be adding more, including easier access and use of it...soon. If there are ideas beyond that, please do let us know.

>But note, maybe a half a million people use the site - all leftists, located all around the world. If everyone did put in their info - then in most places, certainly countries, states, cities, even towns, you would be able to meet others. I don't see how we can do much, however, other than urge it and continually improve the tools...

Don’t underestimate the importance of dialog.  I also think that one of the issues, and frustrations that users have when dealing with Zstaff, is that the process for addressing user feedback is somewhat arbitrary.  i.e.  A user comes to you with a suggestion, you’re having a bad day, or maybe you don’t agree, so that ends the conversation.  To a user this can feel very stifling, in the sense that whether or not they are listened to, is somewhat a matter of luck.  It depends on who they are talking to, whether or not that person agrees that it is an issue.  It also gives you, or whichever staff member they are talking to, WAY too much power.  Don’t get me wrong, you should have more power than the typical user, because what happens at Zmag affects you more than the average Z user.  However, we shouldn’t round user’s decision making power down to zero.  In other words, your ability to see where a sustainer is coming from shouldn’t be the filter or gateway that determines what gets done.  But, if the interaction between you and a user is one on one, that is exactly what happens.  This isn’t by design, but just a side effect of how users and staff are communicating. 

I think you and the staff are very open, and try to take into account what our needs are.  But, as an institution grows, it becomes more important to formalize participation, to ensure that users are given a voice that counts, at all times, not as a matter of chance.

>> How exactly am I supposed to form a chapter of whatever our Parecon club is if I can't even find people?  I thought about using meetup.com, but I don't think we really want to force people to use a commercial site, as that could limit growth.  What's more, this kind of thing would be possible on zmag, if only we set it up and organize the site so that people in a certain geographic location can find each other.

>But actually, we have... as noted above. Have you looked at the videos about site features - examined them, etc.

Sorry, I will. 

>Now you might say, well why do I have to do that? But, honestly, why wouldn't you?

A smart ass reply, but not incorrect,”Why wouldn’t I read the instruction manual for a new car?”  Well, the answer would be, I have 100’s of websites in my bookmarks, and have never had to use a video, so why would I start?

>> III.  I'm a computer programmer, and even as someone who works with arcane syntax and cryptic interfaces every day, I find the interface to be quite arcane and overwhelming.  There are way, way, way too many options and the organization of information is quite haphazard.

>Saying there are too many options always strikes me - perhaps wrongly, but I have to answer honestly - as very strange.

No it isn’t.  According to your reasoning, it would make sense to put the index for textbooks in the front, since the table of contents is a wasteful over-simplification.  Or, when teaching grandma how to use the computer, you’re saying it would make sense to give her a display showing her all of the BIOS settings, her installed software, every single system setting, all programs, including ones that are system or commandline only, within two mouse clicks.  I am an expert, and the only time I check my BIOS is when I’m building a computer, and the last thing I want is to have needless information distracting me from my tasks.  I’m not saying there are too many options, but that they aren’t organized well.  Users prefer to have irrelevant things hidden.  You are trying to avoid the decision of what’s relevant by displaying too many choices in the top menu.  I know that what goes in the top menu is political, but we have a solution, allow people to vote.  That’s a lot better than providing a huge number of choices up front. 

>The top tabbed menu has 13 options. If that is way way way too many - would you like to go down to ten, or eight, or five. WHich ones would you drop - and what would you say to the person for whom those are important?

Yes, down.  First, grouping is important, so they should be grouped in a way that like things go together (as mentioned above in the US, Mexico, Canada example).  Then, let users vote.  To users for whom this is important, I would tell them that we strive to achieve maximal effectiveness for all users. 

>I only use some - but the fact that there are others there for when I do want them, or for someone else - why should that bother me?

It should bother you because there is a cost in having irrelevant information displayed up front.  It makes it harder for users to find what they want.  People tend to look for logical groupings and patterns in how things are organized.  If you fail to do that, then they are likely to overlook something.

>To reduce options means reducing things that someone wants to do, or even that you might want to, at some time - even if we remove ones you don't presently care about. Some folks might not want half the topics, or nine tenths of the places, or various facilities. Surely the thing to do is use what you like and just not the rest, no?

I don’t want to reduce options, I want to change how things are organized.  I’m not proposing that we throw anything away.

>I personally don't really think this should be a factor at all - but it is, I know - and we are creating tools which will allow users to have the top page, and their zspace page, and the top zspace page, look as they like and contain what they want - and no more. Yes, even the top znet page - you will be able to have your own version. But notice, when we do this, it won't mean I have to have your version... which if we just reduced everything, we would be imposing on everyone.

How can you have written as many books as you have, and not understand the importance of layout and organization?  I would think that a lot of the same decision making that goes into organizing the chapters of a book would also apply to creating menus, but I guess I’m wrong.

>So I have to say, even now, before that, saying you find a tabbed menu arcane, and a left menu that does something admittedly unusual, but transparent once you use it, arcane, I find hard to fathom... Perhaps people explaining would help.

Not tabbed menus, but this particular tabbed menu, and not because it’s tabbed, or because it’s a menu, but because of how the particular topics are organized. 

>> There are way too many links on a single page.  Take a look at google, it only has a few links, and then gives you a drop down menu for the rest. 

>Take a look at the New York Times ... etc.

>I just don't see your point, I have to admit - but that's me, again, it won't be an issue, soon, because we will each have what we want. Take the top page - you will be able to see your own version - with whatever boxes of items in the second and third column you want to have there, and no others - with the first column filtered however you want, with whatever numbers of links you want...etc. You could choose, on your version, to have only writers you want, or topics, or places, or whatever else... So this problem, I think, will be history, soon.

Good.

>> There's also the psychological issue of knowing that if I'm overwhelmed, then so is everyone else, so what is the chance that they will use it interactively? 

>Again, this will be history due to coming personalization features - but, while that is so - I have to say, changing the world, honestly, well, it does entail work, lots of issues, lots of foci of concern...we need to be less easily put off, I suspect...

Yes, and while we’ve spent a lot of time talking about the interface, I don’t think that it’s the only reason why people aren’t participating yet.

>> It's one thing to have a few bookmarks to the parts of the site that I use every day, which is the way I've used zmag until now, and quite another to have to interact with the site and learn all of the new features. 

>You don't have to do anything - but it is there is you want to.

>But that said, we are going to allow you have exactly as little as you want, on your version - but, I have to tell you, from where we sit, we of course precisely want people to pay attention to that which doesn't come naturally, what isn't the stuff they are already most into... so it is a kind of balancing act...

I agree, it is a balancing act, and a difficult one.

>> Rather than extending a busy layout with even more features, it would have been better to start over with a sister site or completely clean up the existing site (like what we used to have with parecon.org).

>If what you like is a lower level page - why not just go to it?

That’s what I’ve done, but I miss quite a bit.

>But, again, the personalization features that are coming will address all this, I think...

>So far, despite the tone of your blog, you have said only we should reduce...and of the things you want to be able to do, mentioned one that we in fact facilitate. I am a bit at a loss...

Sorry to disappoint.  I’m going to stop now, since I think I am repeating myself, and I don’t think I have anything new to say in response to the rest of what you wrote.  Most of what I wrote above could be used to answer your other concerns.(however, if I missed something, please let me know).

Response to site admin-

In some sense you’re correct- ZSpace is functional, has a wide range of options and as you mention expanding features.

But like a great many inventions that have surfaced over human history just because something works and functions well, doesn’t mean it will be successful and widely used. The email request for participation seemed to indicate that ZSpace exists as a means to enhance Left networking. This blog and comments discussed reasons for why participation hasn’t been great or ways to attract more participation.

If there are limits to what can reasonably/easily be changed then perhaps you could have provided more detail as to some of the constraints apart from time and money.

I’ve used ZSpace since it launched, love that it exists and have tried to personalize my space and use it. I think the feedback as to ways to improve it comes from the fact that we’re looking to help in its growth.

Here is a more concrete list of suggestions-

Ø      ZSpace needs to be more prominent on the top page or exist as a separate page with options laid out like ZNet’s top page listing of articles, rather than in a variety of menus and sub-menus. While the menus work and are accessible, more features up front means I remember they are there, which means I access them more, which creates greater and more varied use of the features. Having ZSpace as its own page means I can be logged in all day, features at the ready. The ZNet top page is great for this, throughout the day at work I can check for updates and browse an article.

Ø      Related to this, being notified of friends’ updates/additions/discussions etc. This would enhance the networking features of the site. While I can see blog updates via existing features I don’t have time to go through each page to see if people I’m networked with have posted something of interest to me. This existing feature is more useful in finding people of interest that aren’t my friends already.

Ø      Category options- at the moment category selection options for blogs are importantly politically orientated- 2008 election, activism, culture/race etc. The addition of broader options would help ZSpace become a place for all features of people’s lives. So topics such as movies, sports, music, TV, games etc. can allow people to consider and feel comfortable in blogging about such subjects. Obviously people can blog now about such things, but having features that encourage such contributions. Such categories can also be used a means to help people draw connections with more ‘mainstream’ activities and Leftist ideas with articles by Billet being sorted under ‘music’ or Zirin under ‘sport’ etc. This could be a means where ZSpace stands out.

Ø      ZSpace bands page- I use myspace more than facebook due to it being home to many band’s music. I can find and stay up to date via that site.

Ø      There are lots of radical/Leftist bands out there who Im sure are aware of and read Z. While there are groups page, another way to make ZSpace a fun Leftist site is to create a ZSpace band’s listing. Progressive bands can create pages, load music, update fans. Existing lyrics uploaded could appear on the band’s site. It can be hard finding progressive minded music so if I could find them in the one place that would be a great feature of Z.

Ø      Email server- If Z added an email account option then that would enhance the networking use much more just by increasing regular traffic to ZSpace and providing a central place for a variety of functions people use everyday. Z could then be a place where I could go for my news, check my emails, socialize and network.

Ø      A ZSpace weekly update/commentary- a regular email/top page report on the week that was in regards to Leftist popular culture and events, updates, features to look out for on Z. I’m sure there are plenty of people capable of writing something like this. Just another way to keep people informed and coming back to ZSpace.

Hopefully others will add to the list

I have read the original blog post, and the comments. Perhaps I am a little dense, and it was late, I admit, when I went over them, but I had a hard time finding many specific suggestions that I thought we could, or should, act on. Some things I just don't get, others I tend to agree with - but better approaches are not obvious or are already underway. I am going to reply to points raised in the initial blog, item by item, here, but not because I want to debate with this one person. Rather, just to provide reactions that may or may not be useful. 

As far as being static - something raised by a responder to the initial blog - toward the end of the string of replies - it is hard for me to fathom a comment like that, given the array of new features we have added, and then more added, and more - with more coming. 

As to not consulting users, etc. - that too is hard to comprehend - since we sought reactions, ideas, comments, advice, etc., over and over, in diverse ways for months, and have actually never stopped doing so. We even put in whole forums for the purpose, wrote emails and solicited replies that way, etc.

Anyhow...here are reactions to the first blogger's initial specifics, point by point...

==

> I.  The interface is clunky.  It has quite a few options, and a lot of work has been done, however, making it more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing would go a long way towards encouraging people to use it as a social tool.  I don't think you are going to get people involved in Zspace purely from a movement building perspective, because to be honest, I don't see it being that effective as a movement building or organizing tool.  It's a great source of information, but isn't quite there yet when it comes to networking.  So, until it becomes more practical, it needs to be fun.

Saying something is clunky is not, well, very easy to relate to, honestly - because it points nowhere. 

You mention you are a programmer. Excellent. Do a screen image of something better and we can take a look. That will be necessary, I think, because I just don't see how the tabbed menu system is clunky - or the left menu system - and they are the navigation tools. Clunky suggests slow - but they are not slow at all. Clunky suggests, perhaps, inefficient, but I don't see that either since you can get virtually anywhere in the site in two clicks - despite that it is so large. So I don't know what you mean. 

The admin features, however, I agree were clunky - or perhaps more accurately, a bit hard to find, and requiring some serious attention to use well - but they are now improved with quick edit, and will soon become much better...in many more ways.

Maybe I am not hearing well, but I am not sure what you think should be fun - the site technology won't be what is fun, or amusing, or insightful, or inspiring - it is just a vehicle. The content - which writers and sustainers offer, will be all those things, one hopes. 

When I look at the bios of people, which is part of the content that people provide, I am impressed and inspired. If people whose bios I have noticed were to offer up something more of themselves, with more people doing it, my guess is the current technology - much less the technology which is coming - would be fine.

> II.  The things that I really NEED it to do, it doesn't even address.  Here are my issues.  I've been on this site for 6 years.  I still don't know where a single member of zmag/zspace lives, and have no idea who is near by. 

Okay, good, I look forward to seeing things you would like to do that we don't address...

But this first one - is, well, odd. It may well be you don't know where anyone is from, but if so it is not because the site doesn't address it. If everyone enters their locale, anyone could search and find everyone near them. Videos show you how to do so, though, honestly, it is like any other form entry and search - it seems to me...

Soon the friends feature, chat, messaging, etc., will be much better - but they do all exist now.

> The only time I've met other members of the community was at a life after capitalism conference 6 years ago.  I feel extremely isolated, and in my own community, I feel like I'm "the guy who read's zmag", not a member of a larger community or movement. 

I don't know where you live - but all a site can do, I would think, to help with your situation where you live is allow people to enter geographic and other such info, and then tp search for people near them. We have that - but we will be adding more, including easier access and use of it...soon. If there are ideas beyond that, please do let us know.

But note, maybe a half a million people use the site - all leftists, located all around the world. If everyone did put in their info - then in most places, certainly countries, states, cities, even towns, you would be able to meet others. I don't see how we can do much, however, other than urge it and continually improve the tools...

> How exactly am I supposed to form a chapter of whatever our Parecon club is if I can't even find people?  I thought about using meetup.com, but I don't think we really want to force people to use a commercial site, as that could limit growth.  What's more, this kind of thing would be possible on zmag, if only we set it up and organize the site so that people in a certain geographic location can find each other.

But actually, we have... as noted above. Have you looked at the videos about site features - examined them, etc. 

Now you might say, well why do I have to do that? But, honestly, why wouldn't you?

> III.  I'm a computer programmer, and even as someone who works with arcane syntax and cryptic interfaces every day, I find the interface to be quite arcane and overwhelming.  There are way, way, way too many options and the organization of information is quite haphazard. 

Saying there are too many options always strikes me - perhaps wrongly, but I have to answer honestly - as very strange. 

The top tabbed menu has 13 options. If that is way way way too many - would you like to go down to ten, or eight, or five. WHich ones would you drop - and what would you say to the person for whom those are important?

I only use some - but the fact that there are others there for when I do want them, or for someone else - why should that bother me?

To reduce options means reducing things that someone wants to do, or even that you might want to, at some time - even if we remove ones you don't presently care about. Some folks might not want half the topics, or nine tenths of the places, or various facilities. Surely the thing to do is use what you like and just not the rest, no? 

I personally don't really think this should be a factor at all - but it is, I know - and we are creating tools which will allow users to have the top page, and their zspace page, and the top zspace page, look as they like and contain what they want - and no more. Yes, even the top znet page - you will be able to have your own version. But notice, when we do this, it won't mean I have to have your version... which if we just reduced everything, we would be imposing on everyone.

So I have to say, even now, before that, saying you find a tabbed menu arcane, and a left menu that does something admittedly unusual, but transparent once you use it, arcane, I find hard to fathom... Perhaps people explaining would help.

> There are way too many links on a single page.  Take a look at google, it only has a few links, and then gives you a drop down menu for the rest.  

Take a look at the New York Times ... etc. 

I just don't see your point, I have to admit - but that's me, again, it won't be an issue, soon, because we will each have what we want. Take the top page - you will be able to see your own version - with whatever boxes of items in the second and third column you want to have there, and no others - with the first column filtered however you want, with whatever numbers of links you want...etc. You could choose, on your version, to have only writers you want, or topics, or places, or whatever else... So this problem, I think, will be history, soon.

> There's also the psychological issue of knowing that if I'm overwhelmed, then so is everyone else, so what is the chance that they will use it interactively?  

Again, this will be history due to coming personalization features - but, while that is so - I have to say, changing the world, honestly, well, it does entail work, lots of issues, lots of foci of concern...we need to be less easily put off, I suspect...

> It's one thing to have a few bookmarks to the parts of the site that I use every day, which is the way I've used zmag until now, and quite another to have to interact with the site and learn all of the new features.  

You don't have to do anything - but it is there is you want to. 

But that said, we are going to allow you have exactly as little as you want, on your version - but, I have to tell you, from where we sit, we of course precisely want people to pay attention to that which doesn't come naturally, what isn't the stuff they are already most into... so it is a kind of balancing act...

> Rather than extending a busy layout with even more features, it would have been better to start over with a sister site or completely clean up the existing site (like what we used to have with parecon.org). 

If what you like is a lower level page - why not just go to it?

But, again, the personalization features that are coming will address all this, I think...

So far, despite the tone of your blog, you have said only we should reduce...and of the things you want to be able to do, mentioned one that we in fact facilitate. I am a bit at a loss...

> Let's take a look at the top menu to start, and get rid of the Z at the beginning so we don't falsely associate the things together.  We have Com (Why not Home?), Net, Mag, Space, Sustainers (account?), MI/EO (what is an MI and EO?), Blogs/Forums (why together?), Video, Translations, History.  That's not to mention what happens when you go to Znet, and you're given the further top level options of Intl, Places, Topics(huh?), etc.  First, can we rationally group these things together?  What does history have to do with translations, or Space have to do with Net? 

I am sorry, but I have to tell you - this I honestly just find annoying, or silly. It is trivial to write a para like that - it is not trivial to have a vast array of foci and a navigation system that will let anyone get to whatever interests them... but I do think we have that. 

We have ZCom standing for ZCommunications. ZNet, ZMag, and ZSpace are quite different things - and not particular hard to see the difference. Hiding links to get to them would make little sense. As to the rest, sadly, you aren't even looking at the site. Honestly, I don't know what you are looking at - an old version somewhere, I think...

So far, I have to say, leave off the Z ... doesn't quite measure up to the tone of this blog, as the innovative insight we are missing.

> IV.  When people see complex interfaces, their apprehension increases quite a bit.  I think that this fear of breaking things or screwing up keeps people from using the site as much as they could or should.

We should clarify something, I think ZCom is probably the largest and perhaps most widely used left site - certainly seriously left - anti capitalist site - in the world, or nearly so, if not. It has more sustainer/donor support than any other, also, I believe, by a large margin. 

The problem really isn't that it isn't being used - rather the problem is that nowhere on the left is anyone generating what we are trying for - including ourselves, as yet... 

> Here is the way I would do it:

> 1.  There is a saying that most people can't store more than 7 digits in their head.  Good interfaces keep this in mind by usually keeping the number of choices in a top level menu below five. 

I think we will pass on this. 

For one thing, you don't have to memorize a menu...

And my impression is most of these "rules" are created by advertising depts - in order to increase the number of clicks to see things - less on each page - so you see more ads. Designers and programmers - sorry, this is my impression - then get hooked into believing it, and replicate it over and over. People get used to it, at which point, yes, something more substantial seems a bit odd - clunky, one might say. 

Another rule is you ought to be able to easily get to any part of the site - combine that with not many links, and you have a site without much stuff...not an option for us.

> 2.  Naming is important, as are other non-obvious things.  As a software developer, I spend over half my time coming up with names for concepts, efficient ways of organizing common tasks, and logical groupings for sets of tasks.  Something as simple as a name change can completely change how people use a piece of software.  It's an extremely difficult and open-ended problem.  It's not just about coming up with the right answer, but the right questions.  Doing this is extremely important (and difficult).

Is there a positive suggestion here...

> 3.  It seems that there is a bit of fear in simplifying the site.  So, if worse comes to worst, have the community vote.  Ask them:

a.  How many items they would like on the top menu as a default.

You will be able to control your own - but, okay, suppose five was the winner and we couldn't make it so everyone could set their own. Should that mean that eight I want aren't there, or eight you want?

One of the nicest things about the internet is that space - unlike with print - is cheap. There is no need to not have content just because it matters to relatively few of your users...

b.  What their preference is for those items. 

c.  Make the top level menus customizable, so that those who don't like it can set it up how they want. 

Actually, as noted earlier, that is what we are doing, though I would be interested in knowing if some other site has done this...perhaps point me to one. But you know, if we couldn't do it - and most can't - the right thing to do wouldn't be to make it correspond to the shortest list or the average list, but rather, a longer one - because you lose less by seeing three extra items than someone else loses by not seeing three she wants...

> d.  You could even track what gets shown based on how many users go to a certain subsection. 

You could and if our purpose was simply to be a conduit or service agency - it might even make a little sense - though not very much, honestly, since it precludes new things gaining a following. But of course that isn't our purpose - we are a publisher, so to speak, and so have things that we desire to provide...

> 4.  Ask yourself questions like: can my users find what they need easily?  Can even my staff tell me what all of the top level menu options are? 

Don't you think we have? There is a tendency for people to think if others have different answers to questions than they do - it must mean the others haven't asked. There is another possibility - different opinions. 

> What about the menu on the left side?  After using it for a week, am I likely to feel like I know where things are?  

Well, I don't know - I would think using it twice would be sufficient...

> Or, will I have to constantly look to figure it out.  

If you mean, could you use it without seeing the words - no - but is that really a norm that has any value?

I am now a bit befuddled - looking for something we can take and act on...

> Can we describe the site's organization in simple terms that are accurate, comprehensive, and easy to understand.  Or, in describing how it's laid out, am I going to struggle to explain why certain things are where they are?

I think you are going to struggle...so it seems...

> 5.  Is there any redunancy that can be eliminated?  One glaring thing is the menu on the left hand side of the blog posting tool.  I would say that half of the words in this menu are redundant, and not in a good way.  Things like:

Enter My New Multimedia

View/Edit My Multedia

Enter New Multimedia I like

The above could be condensed to Create, Edit, Delete.  Likewise for the other menu options on the left hand side of this page. 

Anyway, that's enough rambling for now.  My hands are tired, but depending on what I hear, I may elaborate a bit more.

I think you are referring to the admin system - not sure - and that is going to be dramatically overhauled...

I dont think its a matter of either/or in regards to seriousness/lighthearted. My comments were more that the tone of ZNet made it feel inappropriate to include the more mundane. I think the mundane, the fun, the frivolous is almost more important as if people can't enjoy themselves while working for a better future then how can we ever achieve anything? On top of that- if we're not enjoying ourselves then are we working on a vision we want to see become reality? That's not to say there's not a place for seriousness etc. But in terms of social networking on ZSpace its all work and no relief.
The analogy that comes to my mind is say you were attending a workshop/camp/conference on the first day- most likely you'd have some social interaction, maybe a get to know you game etc. You would talk about the 'mundane'- life, pets, interests, sports etc. to create bonds and as a means to know the people you'll be working with, to understand them better and to create a more comfortable environment. Everyone at the workshop/conference has relatively shared goals as they are all attending the same event, they all know that serious, hard work is to occur too. But in most situations that Im aware of there is a mix of jokes, serious discussion, relating the big issues back to the mundane and vice versa.
So my hope for ZSpace and possibly the intent of the site, is not to create mundane discussion as such. I think it's to allow people from across the globe to interact in more meaningful, honest and open ways. I think if we do that then we make more meaningful connections, networks and bonds then just throwing blogs at each other. It create more of a progressive community. Ironically I think that the nature of the rest of ZNet is cramping that ability, along with the functionality issues that people raise.
I think the use of facebook/myspace as examples is not focused on their content, more on their popularity and usability. Our aim should be flipped (which I did not state well with my previous comment)- we shouldn't be aiming for a dumbed down ZSpace, we should be aiming for a more thoughtful and progressive Facebook-like community. Does distinction make sense?
Im curious if this discussion is actually being followed by the ZNet staff or others on the site? Is there anyway to allow for more perspectives considering this blog post is now 3 pages in on the susatiner blogs section. I would have hoped that some of this discussion warrants further comment.

Another way to look at it is that I go to Facebook to forget, and I go to Zmag to remember.  I watch Tv to forget about all of the crap going on in my life and around the world, and I go to Zmag, to understand and learn.  The roles that they fill in my life feel opposed.

I guess my best analogy to adding a zspace page to zmag (and I'm not relgious, but if I were...) is that it's like taking a dump in church.  A lot of social networking sites are very pop culture oriented, and also very oriented towards the here and now.  My perception of Zmag is about the future, and making the world better, and transcending the world we have.  I'm not sure if the folks at Z took a hard look at Myspace before they started.  Is this what they are going for?  I mean, if what they want is for people to talk about the mundane, and less serious aspects of their lives, then that's ok, and I'll be glad to do it.  Is the purpose of it to get us talking about more than just left issues?

I hear a lot of mention of Facebook. I have only been there just recently to see what all the fuss is about. So, I really don't know much about it. But, how could a ZCom be like a huge commercial site? Would it want to?

That is one reason I left a link below to where I hang out. They have advertising there now, but it's only recent. I think you may find a more low budget type of site would be a better model for a site like this.

Just a thought.

Thanks for your comments Jon, I agree with your points on functionality of the current ZSpace features.

I might put this up in the forums section also. After reading Michael's email I thought that ZSpace would work best as a separate webpage disconnected from ZNet though heavily linked.

The functionality could be approached differently following suggestions like yours, the purpose/aim of  ZSpace could also be 'dumbed down' or socialized, with more emphasis on interaction and fun as Marcus suggests while retaining a progressive orientation and easy to access links, rss etc to ZNet.

I think the Facebook et. al. are successful in part as its quick to access, it can be left open in the background and its ease of use due to not needing to work through a top page etc.Part of the problem with ZSpace is that it's content consists of serious blogs and little sustained interaction otherwise.

There seems to be an implicit pressure/competitiveness (I could be wrong?) to put up serious stuff only, leaving the fun and frivolous to facebook, myspace etc.

By separating the sites it removes that pressure/ inherent expectation, whatever you want to call it, allowing ZSpace to create its own tone of hopefully creativity, interaction, participation and fun.

I can see people workshopping/interacting on ZSpace and then posting works, ideas etc on ZNet for wider consideration or more involved discussion/defence etc.

This might also aid simplifying functionality/navigation just by removing ZSpace options to their own page, leaving less to sort through on ZNet.

Another idea for consideration...

This is the most important piece I've read on Z in a while. So one, big props Jon.

Hi Jonathan

Read with interest your blog and think this really needs addressing. I use Facebook a lot - I'm not ashamed! - and, though I'm not a webdesigner or anythinng cool like that, I do use the internet a lot, have my own websites and blogs - and I think the Z site is miles too complex for it's own good.

I still don't understand the difference between a sustainer, a member and a contributor even - and, like you, I've been a sustainer for six years, maybe more....

I have been speaking to Chris Spannos recently about a couple of bugs on my Space and I'm sure he's working from the best of motives, but I'm sure it would help to improve the populariy to Z if the site were completely foolproof - even to the extent of Bush being able to use it to see where he went wrong... :)

I agree... I spend a lot of time on websites and this just doesn't work well for me.  I get lost and still can't figure out some of the things that are great about the site.

I

Thanks for posting this. I'm a web developer/designer/usability person, and I agree that the ZCom interface can be quite frustrating and seems unintuitive in a lot of ways. FWIW, the admins did solicit design feedback when the site launched, and I think some improvements were made.  But I agree that at very least the site could benefit from a usability test and from some paring down and simplification-- it almost seems like they/we need to come up with a smaller number of use cases/user scenerios, and redesign the site based on that.

I also have had the same problem with trying to find people in my local area to talk about Parecon (or, at very least, to dissent from the local Obama Cult). I think I even posted in a ZForum dedicated to that, but couldn't find anyone.

Hi Jonathan,

I think the site makes me feel disconnected from the users. The forum seems uninviting. Sort of discouraging. Because of any site, this kind needs connection between users.

Here is where I spend my time-- Blogcritics Polictics Section. The thing is, I don't have all that much in common with many of the regular users there. But, at least we can communicate. It's an inviting format.

Thanks for providing the opportunity to give my two cents.

Cat

Another good one is that old favorite of the coordinator class, the 80/20 rule: people spend 80% of the time using 20% of the features, and vice versa. This is easily and helpfully corrupted into the shorter: focus on the 80% case.

I agree with your criticisms, but I think it's pretty unlikely that the ZAdmins are going to be able to read a blog post here and a comment there and piece together and reconcile all the valid complaints and suggestions and in the end produce a truly usable interface. People react much more strongly to screenshots and mock-ups that present the big picture than an analysis of specific details. I'd almost say it calls for a sort of participatory redesign. Could we extend the scope of the "participation" Michael asked for that far? And does ZCom currently have the tools to facilitate such a thing? Time to experiment with how much I can change the HTML of a post...

Thanks for posting Jonathan.

I. I agree that ZSpace and Znet sometimes seems to have a few too many options, and is not the most intuitive thing to use when adding content. I'm not a webpage designer, but your suggestions seem fair enough.

I sympathise with your frustration at not finding other people to begin organising with. I didn't have too many difficulties using the search facility to find other sustainers living in Australia. The main problem I found was that most sustainers don't show any interest (for example, by mentioning that they would like to get involved in participatory organising with others in their area, or by writing a short bio in their zspace) in using their presence on Znet to connect with others for real-world organising.