DzForum Roadmap

This is a record of notes on ongoing and upcoming decisions related to the design of the DzForum.

Choice of software platform - StatusNet

After considering some forum software and a custom, MoinMoin-based forum implementation, I have decided to use StatusNet for our social networking with herders. The basic advantage of this setup is that users can easily post content, create and join groups, and receive a stream of custom notifications without having to navigate through various web pages and menus, as would be the case with most web-based forums. It is very simple to use.

I have also been considering some of the options for ensuring accessibility to herders. Although I originally planned on using an offline form of distribution using physical media, which is one of the strategies for distributing video recordings and multimedia to research participants, I have backed away from this idea because it is labour-intensive and likely unsustainable. I have also considered distributing Android smartphones with pre-configured Mongolian soft keyboard, but this also seems an extremely expensive (and unscalable) option; currently the cheapest smartphones listed on Alibaba are around $80. Ideally we want something simple, that doesn't require much of a new skill set to use, makes use of existing technology, is inexpensive, and easy to configure and use anywhere. It should not require a computer or expensive mobile device.

I have observed that most herders now actually own and use mobile phones, although network coverage is not yet universal. We can rely on mobile phone networks, but we also need to be aware of the high latency of communications, and of the low capacity of most basic telephones in use in rural areas. We can overcome latency concerns by pushing messages by email or SMS, but this creates additional complexity in setting up user accounts for each service, and in maintaining the messaging services. A web application is the simplest approach, though we need to be cautious to transmit as little data as necessary so as to maintain usability and low cost. For herders who do not own java-enabled telephones, we can distribute basic feature phones that are pre-configured for mobile web access. We might provide something like 5000 airtime credits and a free phone, or else 30000 credits, to all core participants. In return, participants should check in and contribute at least four times a week. We will give airtime credits at the end of the pilot phase in return for this contribution, and for participation in a survey (with comments) on the value of the network.

Interface customization - Dabr

Unfortunately, StatusNet is a bit heavy in its html. I have set up Dabr as a mobile front-end, though there is still a bit of work to complete the functionality:

• [SKIP] It would be nice to have a page for joining and leaving groups, so that conversations can be filtered; this requires a list of groups within an html form. Just following individual users (e.g., CDRC) can work. But if individual users don't follow one another, someone who posts a question etc. will not be heard by anyone else, unless the "core" user retweets it. We can get around this by using the public timeline, however. I'm not sure that we really need "following" functionality with a relatively small group of users, though it could be useful later. Enable the plugin for automatically post to groups. This way we can filter by identities, similar to G+ "circles".

• [DONE] Polls, events, etc. require us to login to the main server, which is an inconvenience. I would actually rather remove these from statusnet, and just use hashtags, etc.

• [DONE] Translate into Mongolian!

• [TODO] Add instructions.

• [DONE] Some way of updating the profile from the mobile interface.

• [SKIP] Fix the file upload ("twitpix") functionality.

• [DONE] Fix the conversation function.

• [DONE] Create a simplified menu: dzforum.mn | @ericthrift | replies | search | settings | help | logout

• [DONE] Replies don't work when they start with an @ character! (Fixed by adding a space)

• [DONE] Ensure that mobile users are automatically redirected to the text-only version. Remove all html overhead from the mobile version.

• [DONE] Remove unneeded configuration options (e.g., colour schemes) and reply options.

Access options

• SMS - This will work on any phone, but has the disadvantage of being quite expensive if we send the messages ourselves (around $0.15 per message, per recipient), and requires hardware maintenance. StatusNet's built-in SMS function relies on carriers' email-to-SMS gateways; unfortunately there is no free option in Mongolia. Mobicom has a gateway that works for around $10/year (xxx@mobemail.mn), though this is actually billed an "email alert" service, so it only conveys the subject of the email, and requires registration by participants themselves.

• Email - On devices with background polling, this gives us a built-in notification system, which can encourage uptake among pilot users (as opposed to a system that requires manual checking). Messages can be downloaded in the background and are available for offline reading, which is useful for herders with slow or intermittent network access. Navigating the email folder on a Nokia phone is somewhat cumbersome if we have a lot of short messages, but usable. For this setup we would probably need to purchase and distribute pre-configured phones to our pilot users; we also need to set up email accounts. We also need a web server that is configured to allow the sending of large amounts of email. An option is to enable the "email summary" plugin, which sends only one email per day; but this is currently unusable for text-only email clients.

• Java app. This uses a very low amount of data, since we don't have the overhead of email headers. It is relatively simple to read since all messages are on a single page. The Mobidentica client can be localized so that the entire interface is in Mongolian, unlike the email or SMS interface. We would need to add some functionality to the java client in order to show subscriptions, groups, reply levels, etc. This setup doesn't allow for background polling and alerts. If the messages are not stored locally, the user has to retrieve them manually; with a lot of messages over a slow connection, this could take up to 20 or 30 seconds, or could even be impossible. We could probably reprogram Mobidentica to use persistent storage, though.

• Web application (via Opera Mini). See also "Java app". This is the most flexible since all modifications to design and functionality can be done on the server side. The browser and web application are in Mongolian. The Opera server minimizes data so that data costs are low. Startup is a bit slow: users need to click several times in order to open the StatusNet page, and the Opera client takes a few seconds to load (see below). It is easier to subscribe to users, "like" and reply to posts, and join groups than using the email interface. Since the user is already in a web browser, it is convenient to follow links to media elsewhere on the web. We don't need to run an email server. This solution is best if we are aiming to promote web interaction among herders; but loading of data from the Internet can be quite slow. If we implement a minimalist, text-only version of the website, however, loading should be extremely quick: don't use any javascript, images, or external css; and keep links to a minimum. Possibly use "star",

Loading speed in Opera: currently 27 seconds to open the StatusNet feed page. 9 seconds to open Opera, and--including the "allow network access" prompt--18 seconds to load the page, which is 21 kb, compressed from 250 kb; the same page is 10kb when translated to text by lynx, or 6-7 kb when we remove extra data. Note that data download speed is several times slower in the countryside. If we are able to compress a text-only version down to 2 kb, it should take only 2-3 seconds to download the page. Actually I get 8 seconds for a 4 kb text file downloaded via Opera from our Canadian server. We could probably get this down to around 20 seconds total. Note, however, that there is still a time saving for the end user as opposed to the use of the built-in email client, since we have less work to do in scrolling, etc.

The cost to download the page might be something like 1-2 togrogs, for 10-20 kb.

Maximum post length

Any length limit is a bit arbitrary, but shorter post limits can level the playing field somewhat between desktop and mobile users, since it is very difficult to input large amounts of text from a basic mobile phone. Shorter messages also encourage concise statements of a single idea (question, answer, argument, etc.). The idea here is that we want to introduce a topic within a relatively short message, though we don't necessarily want to limit things to 140 characters, as on Twitter (which is only a sentence!). 500 characters corresponds to what you could say in about 40 seconds. This is actually quite short; maybe 1000 characters would be more reasonable. But it is a deliberate design decision to break communication into small segments, rather than packaging it into complex arguments; this allows for links and responses to individual, concise ideas or points of information. The microblog is thus closer to conversation than to a set of speeches. Additionally, we want to maintain legibility; long posts are more difficult to scan and assimilate. A paragraph (4-6 sentences) at a time is reasonable. Let's use a hard limit of 600 characters, and a target of 500.

Translation

We need some way of getting a translation workflow for English-speaking contributors. Possibilities:

1. English speakers use their own translators.
2. We send a digest of comments by email, and post responses as an intermediary.
3. We have a group that I can re-post translated messages to. Or else I send these as person-to-person messages.

Beta testing

We will want to set this up as a "soft launch". Start with me, Odnoo, Naran, Cacaa; proceed to relatives in Yeroo, and so on.

I need to put together a series of questions and observations for the "test" phase:

• Technical issues related to the system, and its organization, configuration, and use (e.g., instructions development, privacy settings)
• Sample questions about resource use, etc. (picking up on the questions from the introductory interviews)
• Sample discussion about governance: news about developments in the pastoral sector
• Status updates--what I'm doing, etc.
• Avatars, profiles, etc.
• Preliminary discussion about "culture and development"
• name for the forum.

We should probably run this on our online server. I will just need to backup the database. Running it at home is more of a risk since our Internet connection has maintenance needs...

Discussion format

There are a few possible ways of structuring the discussion. The "communicative rationality" way of doing it is to present each intervention as a sort of an argument, to which people can agree or disagree. But I find that part of the problem with this approach is the assumption that with clear logic, a single and "true" solution can inevitably be reached regardless of the actors--in other words, the people are absent. An alternative is to discuss ethnographic-type case studies or "stories", and to make (invite) insightful comments explicating these. The challenge here is that not everyone necessarily will know what to contribute, since the parameters of the discussion are less clear.

I think, however, that we may need to look at how these types of discourses can be complementary. For example, political and microeconomic decisions are often made according to some kind of rational logic, but the parameters of the decision and the information to be considered are not decided in rational terms. Any given statement is rationally or logically "true" only in the context of a presupposed positionality--in other words, we can say that "a flat tax is fairer than a graduated income tax", but only in the context of an existing system of taxation, state services, social inequalities, practices related to the payment of taxes, and so on, which are specific to a given place and group of people. Unpacking such a generalization we can say that the statement is true insofar as it relates to the population as a whole, but at a smaller or larger scale--such as the individual household, or the world as a whole--it does not necessarily remain true.

The sorts of things we might want to discuss, then, are not whether a given idea should be accepted as universally "true"--and therefore "black boxed" like scientific theories--so much as what a given idea means to a specific individual from a specific position. For instance, if we are discussing cooperatives or open source labelling, it can be helpful to get insights from a number of people who have actually had these experiences. But we can also discuss existing, relevant experiences from people who have not participated in cooperatives or labelling schemes: what enables or limits cooperation with others? What do you think would be the benefits or challenges, from your position, of setting up or joining a cooperative? In other words, we can end each exposition with a series of exploratory questions, as opposed to a black-and-white position (or proposition) that we ask people to agree or disagree with.

Ontological questions

"How do we know what is true?" and "how do we decide on courses of action?"

Kompridis's notion of "Reflective disclosure", as enabling the imagination of new forms (rather than democratic agreement) underlines the importance of creativity and its distinction from the types of rationality discussed by Habermas, which are essentially related to identifying "truths"--as statements that we can agree to--through logic, assessment of validity claims, etc. In other words, moral discourse primarily concerns the distinction between "right" and "wrong", but even though these assertions may be situated, they do not cover the realm of the "possible".

From a standpoint theory perspective, we probably need to think more about the meaning of statements from individual perspectives. This is not to say that there cannot be shared truths--or that "truth" is relative. Rather, while we need to strive for agreement on what is fair, just, appropriate, and so on, in the public (political-democratic) sphere and more generally, at various scales, in deciding culturally/socially what is appropriate and what is not--and here Habermas's example of the Holocaust is pertinent--such agreement does not entail identical understandings for everyone. Thus while we may agree, as members of a just society, that murder is wrong or that we need to promote gender equality, no two people will agree to these points for exactly the same reasons and in exactly the same ways. Some will respond on an emotive level; others may have a position shaped by past experiences of violence and abuse; others may have a predominantly intellectual stance. People support different arguments because those arguments are tangible to them--meaning that the arguments can most directly relate to their own grounded experiences. Such "experiences" include the communicative environment: my experience of a claim about the nature of women will be different if I live among men who value and reward strong masculinity than if I am a women who circulates among feminists. This is because even though we can achieve abstract statements about the logical validity of the claim, what really matters is how the claim relates to everyday life; at the point where the abstraction is subject to consensus (i.e., it is no longer controversial) the claim becomes so general as to become moot. The claim is more significant if it contradicts my everyday experience, and is concrete rather than abstract. We may have the perception that concrete claims are easier to validate (or invalidate) than universal, abstract ones; but this perception is misguided, since it all depends on whose position is taken.

In this research project, we are looking at the problem of communication in relation to pastoral governance. One of the issues that emerges here is that positions advocated by some scientists or policymakers reflect efforts to make decisions that are divorced from individual, grounded experiences--or indeed, in the case of some environmentalists or economists, that take the "position" of a reified entity such as "the environment" or "the economy". Similarly, the ecological literature often aims to find appropriate generalizations about the properties and needs of emergent systems. Here I would say that it is reasonable to think about the ecosystem, or the human society, as internally contradictory yet having properties that differ from the sum of its parts. These "emergent properties" are discussed in the literature as stability related, or in terms of interdependent elements. But this generally assumes the undesirability of change, or at least change of certain types: "resilience" is distinguished from "stability" but it describes cyclical change rather than evolution (which is more appropriately described as linear). In this regard I think that while it is useful to consider individual experiences, these should not be viewed as corresponding to static needs or identities (e.g., "the needs/interests of small-scale livestock producers"). I suggest that it can be more useful to look at interlocking processes rather than systems.

There are 0 attachment(s) stored for this page.