I feel very strongly that the site needs to encourage users to think about the content they’re entering, in turn leading them to provide better quality content.

I refer to this consideration as “barriers to entry”. Many product teams are averse to barriers becuase of the focus on making things AS easy AS possible but there’s more to growing QUALITY content beyond ease of use. As these examples point out.

“might even be a design approach for Web 2.0 applications. A whole lot of effort goes into defining and refining the database structure behind most business apps”
.
.
“What if instead of having to train users on what they actually mean… you sidestep those tedious tasks and encourage users to write text. And write freely. The more the better. My hunch is that unstructured data can be richer and easier to collect than highly structured data, and therefore more valuable.”

I would say people write articles in the form of ads with the aim of entertaining other users and hopefully being voted on to the best of page. Someone designed in a social feature allowing for creativity.

That said I’m fairly heavily involved in content generation for a web2.0 site http://www.instructables.com

One thing I see is a lot of abuse of what makes valuable content. I feel very strongly that the site needs to encourage users to think about the content they’re entering, in turn leading them to provide better quality content.

So, where I’m going with this is Yes.. having an ‘open’ process or and ‘open’ content system such as craiglist will lead to novel developments or uses that could not have been forseen. However the flip side is complete chaos (theory) which can lead to failed developments/UIs.

I beleive it is possible, although extremely difficult, to design in an element of ‘innovation possibility’. That is, a well defined process which allows for creativity, or a content UI structured in such a way that users are both guided if they want to be or given freedom if they feel expressive.

I like this line from the fast company article “(gore is) doing something almost magical: fostering ongoing, consistent, breakthrough creativity.”

The keyword for me is fostering. Whether in terms of employees or users, someone somewhere is thinking about how to leverage the most out of people and -designing- a way to do that.

Though this holds true in a typical product development process, its not necessarily this case during the technology innovation process. That process takes tinkering (rapid, iterative prototyping).

To use Josh’s Gore-Tex example earlier, consider how “tinkering” (with absolutetly no design spec) can lead to innovation at Gore: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/89/open_gore.html

“As a side project, Myers was working on his mountain bike, trying to make the gears shift more smoothly. He coated the gear cables with a thin layer of plastic, much like Gore-Tex. His tinkering resulted in Gore’s Ride-On line of bike cables. That success inspired Myers to try to…”

I’m finding that most of what we talk about here is about definition, and although that sounds like a drag it is important because that’s how we approach what we do, by how we define it in our minds. For example, if I think design is more broad than Luke does, then maybe I’ll be a different kind of designer than he is…and he’ll approach his projects differently than I would.

Bill, are you familiar with Eric Von Hippel’s work? He writes about user innovation…and what he calls “lead users’. I think he would agree with your suggestion about taking the “centered” out of UCD.

This may be Web 2.0’s contribution to user-centered design…forget the “centered”… how about user-design?

In situations where users’ activity creates content and grows “secondary repositories” whose value rivals that of the “edited content” (e.g. Amazon product reviews), there are great reasons to throw open the design to users who find ways to make your service all the more valuable.

The designer/engineer doesn’t cease to have a role…but the priorities change. Their first job is to pay attention to users, support emergent uses by exposing functiouns in the UI, documenting and standardizing (e.g. Google Maps’ API), and introducing new *capacity* without narrowing it to a strict feature set…keep the user-design flowing.

Question: Engineering/Developers cant build something correctly without clear specification. What is the specification if it is not Design?

(note, a good specification should have UI input)