I'm attending an unconference this weekend where you post session ideas on a blog in the couple weeks before the event. You all might be interested in my post as I feel like it might reflect a design thinking :P approach to historic preservation, http://thatcamp.org/2010/reimagining-the-national-register-nomination-form/
looks cool dude. however, as always I have some feedback...
It is very tool focused. You are referencing a bunch of different data management applications out there, and while I am sure you have a good idea of the way that those applications handle the data, without going to each site, signing up, and checking out the input forms, I don't really have a good idea of what they are bringing to the table.
Are you imagining that you will propose a wireframed out nomination from that includes input fields for 10 (this is the number of apps that you reference) separate application links? Also, it strikes me that each one of these applications will have additional subdata fields for filling out.
I guess what is missing from this proposal is what you are going to bring other than a bunch of questions. It would be helped immensely by the following sentence: "I will be presenting a number of alternate forms that address these issues, and bring to the table additional methods of linking rich data to the nomination form".
?
Disclaimer: Eli, I'm making these comments after a cursory reading of your post, so I may be way off base...
Have you considered the needs/desires of the people processing the form? It seems like you are throwing a lot more information at them. And more raw data at that, which needs to be interpreted. Do they need this additional information to approve a nomination? The addition of pictures probably makes sense, but do the reviewers want to have to follow links to vast databases? What affect will your proposed form have on the review/approval rate?
If the additional data is not necessary for nomination approval, perhaps it makes sense to add all this additional information and connectivity after the nomination is approved--i.e. part of the register, but not part of the nomination form.
SO, speaking of design thinking, the Army is getting on board. This article explains. The Military Review articles linked to in that piece are quite good. I think the Army's thinking about innovation and design thinking is comprehensive and balanced--much more so than the one-sided boosterism that exists in the design and business press. Reading this stuff is akin to extreme user research--if companies innovate in a stupid way, they lose market share. If commanders innovate in a stupid way, people die. Because of that, the U.S. military--an amazingly adaptable organization--is very thoughtful about what they adapt.
Thanks for reading the post, dudes. I have further thoughts but might save them till I have a chance to write it out clearly.
you must login to post