Community Meetings
#CommunityMeeting Metadecidim Community work and meeting space.
Community Meeting 1: How do you imagine a new design for Decidim?
Cultuurconnect (Belgium)
Decidim.Austria
New York City Civic Engagement Commission
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Generalitat de Catalunya
Platoniq
Open Source Politics
Gdynia City (Poland)
Digidem Lab (Sweden)
Code for Japan
Liquidvoting.io (Portugal)
Universitat de Barcelona
Som Energia
RIPESS - Solidarity Economy Europe
In autumn of this year we will start working on the redesign of the interface of Decidim. We invite the Metadecidim community to join this session, get to know the firsts drafts we’ve been working with and give your valuable feedback.
(This session will be held in English)
Central European Time
📺 Watch the video of the meeting:
Structure of the session
1. Welcome [ 16:00 - 16:10]
2. Presentation of proposals [ 16:10 - 16:30]
Explanation of the design proposals: context, needs covered and details of the layout.
3. Group work [ 16:30 - 17:15]
Discussions in groups of 5 people and voting on the most relevant conclusions
4. Conclusions [ 17:15 - 18:00]
Presentation of the conclusions of each working group and feedback from Product and Design
Meeting Minutes
Presentation of proposals
👀 Demo: http://decidim-design.herokuapp.com/public
4 questions for the debate:
- Are these problems correctly identified?
- Are these problems correctly addressed?
- What other use cases are not addressed in this proposal?
- What other major areas/problems would you address next?
Group work
GROUP 1
Are these problems correctly identified?
Hal (Japan): I think these problems are identified well. Especially the responsive design is very important because more than half users are using smartphones in Japan.
I like the incremental approach and thought given to upgrade process of existing instances
Are these problems correctly addressed?
Seems so, to me. But I haven't deployed a live instance yet with real users
What other use cases are not addressed in this proposal?
Accessibility of the platform - language translation, visual impairments, etc.
What other major areas/problems would you address next?
These sample contents should be more real text. (and images)
Accessibility issues are important.
Users with screen readers have issues reading the UI. There were also contrast issues (at least in NYC).
GROUP 2
Are these problems correctly identified?
Good diagnosis.
Are these problems correctly addressed?
No proposal on harmonize the buttons
What other use cases are not addressed in this proposal?
The number of tabs (or double menu), the map interface
We don't have an information hierarchy strategy for mobile. We should reduce the amount of information.
Are there any other ways to solve these problems?
What other major areas/problems would you address next?
Feedback on the proposal
Cards
- Paulina : Process origin is not really visible. Looked better when it was smaller. Prefered the older version.
- Klaar : Meeting card, afraid that if that it'll be too long if the whole description. Afraid that people won't understand that you need to click through to get the details.
- Virgile : they need to be clear that they can be clicked through. More differentiation between the cards.
Filters
All: huge improvement!
Process
Virgile : A lot of feedback saying that Hiding information about phases is not very appreciated. I would have a block below the description for the steps and the block could be unfolded by the user. So you don't have a separate page. Detach the steps in 2 ways: leave the current step and the CTA, and the rest of information of the steps can be in the block.
Process technical data
- Klaar: the suggested solution makes the problem a bit worse. Maybe instead of adding a new item menu it could be hidden under the information icon. The main menu should be as short as possible (4 or 5 tabs max).
- Virgile: Maybe folding the documents in the homepage would be better. Most people don't have a problem scrolling down. If it gets too crowded we could find a way to fold them. Let's take into account the mobile strategy. Generally, we could hide a lot of info into foldable menus that users
- Pauline : Toggle for related documents is a great idea.Maybe use folders for that. Thinking about the right sidebar that is not very used, we have a lot of blank space.
GROUP 3
Are these problems correctly identified?
- Cards
- Question: will you be able to add images to meetings?
- We like that top is "cleaned up" -> leads to more clarity.
- Process Pages
- The menu bar could be useful to improve guidance of participants through process.
- Francesco liked where the technical data was previously
- Filters: great, that filters will take less space - more space for main content.
- Expected
- about how participants are guided through processes on a more fundamental level
- when participants access the landing page, it is not clear on what to do
- Main navigation menu is often modified in practice, so it should be addressed
Are these problems correctly addressed?
- General agreement that everything presented was a welcome improvement
- Cards
- the fact you can click on cards anywhere is nice
- Filters
- seems like an improvement
- Process page header being much cleaner is good
What other use cases are not addressed in this proposal?
- Cards
- will you be able to add images to meetings
- we didn't see what voting would look like on cards
- Process page
- The sub menu bar is not prominent enough
- For ordinary citizens, it needs to be more dominant
- the steps are now where the technical data use to be
- Does lowering it make it less prominent?
- Customization of navigation bars
- maybe do a hamburger side menu
What other major areas/problems would you address next?
- about how participants are guided through processes on a more fundamental level
- when participants access the landing page, it is not clear on what to do
- Main navigation menu is often modified in practice, so it should be addressed
- customizing invitational emails to private spaces
- allow images to be resized - example the logo is often to small on the homepage
- collaborative text work splits it up into many proposals, which makes the landing page cluttered with hundreds of proposals from one collaborative text (option of hiding them)
- being able to customize what shows up on the process landing page
GROUP 4
What other major areas/problems would you address next?
- Maps
- Hierarchy of information
- The forms used by the user to input data can be unneededly complicated
Looking at the design elements:
Cards:
- Good with pictures
- The number of supports is now quite small and in grey
- The author of the proposal is almost invisible, it's really important to understand that there are people behind the proposals
- There is no CTA button on the process card and it's a shame. It was really useful to make the user dive in the current step of the process
- There is no information about the number of people following on a card anymore. Not sure if this is good or not. It should be visible when supports are inactive
- Follows aggregate comments and supports in a way so this can be an interesting metrics
Filters:
- Really glad with the redesign
- Before, the mobile version was very confusing with a Filter button which was often missed by users
- It is really good that the Filter block is now more visible, split in 3 parts (search field, filters, filter by status)
- It's a big change that you can't choose proposals with different status anymore (Accepted, Evaluating, Unanswered)
- Does that also mean that the default mode (All) will now include the Rejected proposals as well?
- We could have a sorting option to show the most followed proposals (could be called most active)
- There should be a really easy way to find my own proposals (it could maybe include my organisation's proposals as well?)
- The filter items (Eixample, Ajuntament on the mockup) could have different colours based on their nature (category, area, source...) so they are easy to differentiate
In general: we should facilitate user's usability: have an easy access to your own profile (my proposals...)
Process landing page:
- It's good that the banner is not behind the process title anymore
- The red letters on the top menu are hard to identify as buttons or links
- The navbar menu items are still too close to each other and not really readable. We are using emojis to make them clearer but a lot could be done in the standard design
- Would need a radical change
- The timeline is lower and didn't get bigger. It should get a bigger place as it's so important for the user to understand where they are in the process
- The CTA button (also on the timeline card) got lower as well, it should be bigger and higher up
- Next to each component's title, there could be a CTA button (New proposal, Vote...)
Process technical data:
- Agree that this information is not important enough to warrant a whole tab. What if only a field is filled, will it take up a whole new tab? Admins will end up not using it at all
- Also the name "Technical data" will be confusing for users, they will not understand that it is technical data of the process
(it was not completely clear how the problem of contrast between images and text is solved: is it only for the process landing page that they are "separated" now?)
GROUP 5
Are these problems correctly identified?
- We like to view the card "type" on top of it (ie: "PROPOSAL"). It should be used in the other types as well.
- Great job with statistics
Are these problems correctly addressed?
- The process phases card should be visible in all the components of the process (including the technical data page)
- It is really useful to have the action button in the initiatives cards to sign them, as well as other cards that have a clear "Call to action"
What other use cases are not addressed in this proposal?
- Make it easier to customize styles for a Decidim instance, improve documentation, Themes repository?
- Improve the UI and UX guidelines for developers for creating new content (which cards to use and in which cases), and make maintainers request developers to follow the guidelines in order for their PRs to be merged.
- Responsiveness of header and footer. Especially important to fix the "tabs problem", now are clipped if there's to many and the viewport of the browser is small but not too small.
Are there any other ways to solve these problems?
- Enable participants to either upload an image or choose an icon for resources that display in cards (such as Proposals)
What other major areas/problems would you address next?
- Rethink some UX journeys (for instance, joining meetings might be confusing).
- Improve the organization, structure and documentation of the SASS codebase. Make it easy for developers to create new themes.
- Admin should be improved too.
- Conferences is an important place and should be taken into consideration too (main page, programme)
- Maybe add a button to join each meeting in the meeting programme? Or in the meeting card
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
34 comments
Conversation with álvaro ortiz
Would it make sense to share the proposals prior to the meeting?
Yes please ! Especially if we have 3 min to contribute each :)
It would be great to meet you guys for the first time.
Conversation with Hal Seki
Hello, I'm using Decidim in Japan and interested in this event. Can I join this meeting?
Also, is the timezone in CET?
yes
Conversation with Jason Diceman
I see already no spaces available :-(
First come first serve is not fair for people in different time zones. Also not quite a rational way to prioritize participant selection.
Capping at only 25 spaces seems to be forced by the linear design of the meeting agenda as 3 minutes per speaker to make comment (and no discussion?). Consider parallel processing agenda using breakout rooms and tools like GroupMap.com
E.g.
Before meeting: Send designs to participants (with rational). Invite questions of clarification via online forum.
In Meeting:
1. Short presentation on the designs and answer common questions.
2. Breakout rooms (~5 ppl) to discuss perspectives.
3. Brainstorm feedback comments.
4. Idea rating on comments.
5. Design leads respond to top comments.
I've done this process many times and it easily scales up to large numbers of participants.
(text comments is also more equitable for non-English speakers).
I'd be willing to help coach an online facilitator of the meeting.
wow, i think that this a great idea and could improve a lot this meeting!
I agree with @furilo and @diceman.
I think it is necessary to share the designs before the meeting. Moreover, this is a platform for participation and we can use it to make the process broader in which more than 25 people can participate. Besides, changing Decidim's interface is not a minor change.
Conversation with Oliver Azevedo Barnes
Building on top of what @furilo, @diceman and @Ariadna_VA said, couldn't the drafts be posted on Metadecidim as proposals first, to gather some async feedback with plenty of time to spare, and then have the meeting for a more informed real-time interaction?
Maybe even create a separate participatory process for the redesign, or perhaps one for Design in general.
If there's a concern regarding the presentation, maybe a video prez or a screencast could be added to the proposals, as well.
I agree. It makes a lot of sense to use Decidim to demonstrate participatory democracy on the future design of Decidim.
As the old saying goes, we need to "eat our own dog food"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eatingyourowndogfood
Thanks :)
To be fair, Metadecidim is already dogfeeding with regards to features (and some bugs and even some governance issues). But there's a recently established new governance structure in place, the Decidim Association, and things are in a flux. They just got funding and are working on expanding the team, on top of handling the roadmap.
I'm guessing they might be worried about having enough capacity to handle even more community communication beyond current Metadecidim and Github load (we've also been lobbying for a semi-sync comms channel).
Conversation with Carol Romero
Hey everyone! Wow, it's great to see so much interest from the community now that we are getting back to the meetings! 🚀🚀 Thank you so much for all the feedback and ideas to improve the session.
Let us go through the different issues that have been raised:
It is also important to emphasize that this is not a closed proposal. The goal of this meeting is to open the conversation with the community about a process that will start in a few months, and we will have plenty of time to discuss in depth about different aspects of the design of the platform.
But it is true that the dynamics initially proposed limits the number of participants and the capacity to debate and share ideas. So we take Jason's proposal to structure the meeting, thanks for the suggestion! We'll have more time to comment on the mockups and do it with more participants.
As we don't have a big facilitation team, we propose to make it self-organized, at the beginning of the session we designate a room facilitator who will be in charge of collecting feedback from her group. Check out the updated meeting agenda!
Conversation with John Willson
Will the meeting be recorded and/or will it allow observers?
Since there are no more spaces available, I support the idea to allow observers.
Hi, there are 2 seats available now
Hi, the session will be recorded and uploaded in the following days. We've also remind you that there is a waiting list that you may register. Thanks!
https://meta.decidim.org/assemblies/eix-comunitat/f/1506/
Conversation with Pierre Mesure
Hi @angela, I haven't received the link to the meeting.
Yo estoy igual (aunque me he podido inscribir hace poco). ¿Cómo podemos conectarnos?
Me neither...
Seems like I'm not the only one. I registered on the first day and I never got an invite.
@carol You might be able to help us?
I also haven't received the link.
Neither did I...
I also registered early, have been receiveing all the comments but have not received the link to join the meeting!
Can someone post it here please or contact directly?
thanks
Jason
Thanks a lot for the meeting report!
I would have loved to be able to attend, I'm looking forward to the next one!
Have a good week everyone :)
Conversation with Antti Hukkanen
Thank you a lot for the team and the participants for sharing all this! This is a great start for a better tomorrow.
I wanted to say it's great that the community is getting involved at this stage of the process. And I also wanted to mention this is a great way to show that the community's opinion matters more and more moving forward (at least the feeling I got from this)!
I agree with many of the points that were raised by the groups and it raised a some thoughts in my head too that I wanted to share below. Largely pointing out what I personally found important from the discussion. And sorry for the long text / spamming this thread, I unfortunately missed the available slots for this first meeting.
General
What was mentioned by @maite_lopez_sanchez (group 4) in the video's chatbox towards the end of the meeting is an excellent point. Get actual users involved in the design process very early on. I think it would be extremely valuable to have a better understanding what the real users want before starting to build a HTML prototype. Drawing should be enough, no code required at early stages.
For the design process in general, I would suggest to think of actual use cases where the users would use the platform. Not to think too much about "how could we restructure this view". I understand the challenges keeping the backwards compatibility with the design but I also think it is just a technical challenge that can be solved later on. Put users (= real people) first. Right now it seems that the assumption is that the user paths have been defined correctly to begin with but structure of information needs to change (I don't know if that is the case?).
What I would suggest to do as an exercise (if there are any resources to do this):
Draw very simple sketches about them (do not put much time on the design, these can be very simple)
Ask the users to try it out (put the images together as a clickable prototype)
Follow what they are trying to do, where they struggle and ask A LOT of questions in every step (why did you do that, why did you decide to press that, where did you expect to find that [if they struggle], etc.)
Navigation
As mentioned by @FrancescoT (group 3) it would be great if the admins could decide how they lay out the navigational structure. From our perspective, the process landing page has been unnecessary most of the times. I think it would be better as a component that can be added to the space rather than something that is forced.
I agree what was mentioned by many that adding an extra tab in the process menu does not seem a good solution to solve the "too much information" problem. I would rather think what is absolutely necessary and what is not. Could the extra info be moved to the content pages and link there if someone is interested?
Also what was mentioned by @pierre (group 4) and @verarojman (?) (group 5) about having the clear CTA button in the process header is very important element to have to guide the users to the right place at the right time.
For the mobile process navigation the feedback we've got is that many users appreciate that all the links are visible straight away. So, I feel the suggested approach for mobile process navigation would be a step backwards. Many people don't find where to go on mobile when they come to the process navigation bar.
Buttons
I also feel the issue with button consistency was not addressed but it is great to see it has been identified as a point for improvement.
Possibly the work just hasn't begun yet here regarding this.
Cards
I agree with points raised by @pierre and @virgile_deville that having a CTA in the card would be important, even when the whole card is clickable.
Having an "icon" for the cards as mentioned by @verarojman (?) (group 5) is also a great point. Helsinki had a similar requirement and we solved it by making it possible to add images for the categories. This way e.g. the proposal cards can use the category image as a fallback when the user has not defined the image.
Content on Images
I think this issue has been identified correctly although it was not largely discussed. Possibly the lack of dicussion on this topic might be an indicator the participants agreed with the decisions being made there or possibly it's not a large concern in general.
My opinion is that I really liked the process heading clearly separated from the image but as mentioned above, it concerns that the CTA is moved away from the header. I think it would be important to have the CTA in the header.
Mobile UI
Great to hear that the PWA work is in the roadmap!
For the mobile web UI, I would also support the point from @virgile_deville that hiding some of the information for mobile would be welcomed.
Add your comment
Sign in with your account or sign up to add your comment.
Loading comments ...