Avi Soudack — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:44:46 GMT

Patrick,
Thanks for raising this. I was taken by your point about how different applications are mini-environments that we have to negotiate between. What a waste.
If you haven’t already, have a look at Jef Raskin’s The Humane Interface. (Summary here: http://jef.raskincenter.org/humane_interface/summary_of_t… He argues for abolishing: file names, folders, the distinction between files and applications, and anything that makes you switch modes (your uploading photos example comes to mind). He’s for: ways to use humans’ innate spatial wayfindng abilities and focusing attention on the task at hand. His zoomng video space metaphor is really fascinating.

p.s. His ideas are being actively pursued (http://rchi.raskincenter.org/index.php?title=Home) though I’ve only just discovered this.

Avi Soudack — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 02:23:30 GMT

Thanks for opening this thread and sharing your experiences.

In my work with not-for-profit organisations I have noticed: 1) the challenge of too many objectives, 2) under-capitalisation, 3) competitive pressures, and 4) built-in community.

1) As you say, there are many stakeholders. Charities are often trying to reach a huge swath of people with greatly varied needs – from donors, to aid recipients, to sponsors, to scientific/professional audiences, and on. This can lead them to over-extend their strategy and to try to be all things for all those people. Focusing on what they can do well, and what the interactive media can do best is important, when there is no single bottom line. Sounds like you were helping them with the hard job of determining value.

2) Like other organisations, not for profits want to use the internet for exciting things like social networking and efficiency improving things like web-based business processes. But designing and building these well can take time and money. Often not-for-profits often don’t have the resources to invest in doing this sort of thing well. And because of their economics, they tend to see building a web site (for example) as a cost, rather than an investment. That’s why Daniell’s call for cooperative efforts and shared resources makes sense.

3) Unfortunately, not-for-profits can be as competitive as for-profits. Within a sector, they compete for donors, resources, members, etc. So finding a platform for sharing can be hard. Typically it seems to work for organisations of the same type that serve different geographies. Again, IAs and the like can help the organisations find who they can best serve and share with.

4) Many not-for-profits have built in communities … they take to messaging, forums, and sharing very easily, and they provide access to people who will willingly and enthusiastically help test designs and development work.

So, in some ways not-for’s are not dissimilar from other types of organisations, but they have unique challenges and opportunities that make them particularly interesting and rewarding to work with.

Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Avi Soudack