Designing Participation the Web Design Timeline

In 2004, two educational and research institutions — Piet Zwart Institute (Willem de Kooning Academie Rotterdam) and Institute of Network Cultures (Hogeschool van Amsterdam) — launched A decade of webdesign, a project to commemorate 10 years of web design (1994–2004). The initiative resulted in a conference in Amsterdam (January 2005, http://www.decadeofwebdesign.org/) and a web-based, open timeline (http://www.designtimeline.org), inviting internet users worldwide to share their personal memories about the history of web design.

The Web Design Timeline did not function as a purely internet-based endeavour; it was an online counterpart for a real-life conference. Connecting physical and virtual interaction in a meaningful manner is often an important challenge. In this case, both realms — online and offline — bore clear and active references to each other: the web-based timeline showed a prominent link to the conference’s site, and during the conference the timeline’s interface was permanently projected on a fixed screen while new content was added between conference sessions.

The web-based timeline was mainly designed as a medium for engaging a diverse audience, more broadly than was possible during the physical conference, in a participatory manner. Its designers, Femke Snelting and Michael Murtaugh, wanted to provide a platform that would stimulate the emergence of layered histories through multiple experiences and perspectives on the topic. They decided to use a FAQ-style architecture (Frequently Asked Questions), where users could submit questions, answers and images — in any language of their choice, thus trying to avoid a mainly US-oriented or English-language discourse. At a certain point, German students were asked to translate a set of questions from English to German. Typical questions and answers focused on topics such as early browsers, first experiences with websites, internet hardware and code.

In open, collaborative online environments, questions and doubts about quality control and moderation usually arise quickly. How can a chaotic situation, with distributed authorship, result in content that meets certain criteria? Does it actually make any sense to speak about quality standards? And is any moderation or intervention needed? In this particular case, the timeline’s designers decided to see if the platform would auto-regulate; they became active users and contributors themselves, but refrained from moderating other people’s writing (only in a few isolated cases, entries with self-promotional content were actively removed). The timeline’s simple and clear Q&A structure and low-tech design provided a rather strict framework for contributors; this situation has probably helped in keeping submissions on topic, and in avoiding spam and abuse. While the project’s openness and multi-perspective character was much more important than the eventual production of output with specific quality criteria, enforcing such standards turned out to be unnecessary in the first place.

In 2004, two educational and research institutions — Piet Zwart Institute (Willem de Kooning Academie Rotterdam) and Institute of Network Cultures (Hogeschool van Amsterdam) — launched “A decade of webdesign”, a project to commemorate 10 years of web design (1994–2004). The initiative culminated in a conference in Amsterdam (January 2005, http://www.decadeofwebdesign.org/) and a web-based, open timeline (http://www.designtimeline.org), inviting internet users worldwide to share their personal memories about the history of web design.

The Web Design Timeline did not function as a purely internet-based endeavour; it was an online counterpart for a real-life conference. Connecting physical and virtual interaction in a meaningful manner is often an important challenge. In this case, both realms — online and offline — bore clear and active references to each other: the web-based timeline showed a prominent link to the conference’s site, and during the conference the timeline’s interface was permanently projected on a fixed screen while new content was added between conference sessions.

The web-based timeline was mainly designed as a medium for engaging a diverse audience, more broadly than was possible during the physical conference, in a participatory manner. Its designers, Femke Snelting and Michael Murtaugh, wanted to provide a platform that would stimulate the emergence of layered histories through multiple experiences and perspectives on the topic. They decided to use a FAQ-style architecture (Frequently Asked Questions), where users could submit questions, answers and images — in any language of their choice, thus trying to avoid a mainly US-oriented or English-language discourse. At a certain point, even, German students were asked to translate a set of questions from English to German. Typical questions and answers focused on topics such as early browsers, first experiences with websites, internet hardware and code.

The site was promoted through a variety of channels — together with the web design conference’s publicity, and via a selection of email lists about internet culture, media art and web design. Over the course of more than one year, approximately 100 questions and 700 answers were gathered, submitted by more than 200 registered users. In terms of generating critical mass, this project has been quite successful; many people probably contributed because of active interest in the topic and because they were willing to share their experiences and opinions about web design more broadly.

In open, collaborative online environments, questions and doubts about quality control and moderation usually arise quickly. How can a chaotic situation, with distributed authorship, result in content that meets certain quality standards? Does it actually make any sense to speak about such quality standards? And is any moderation or intervention needed? In this particular case, the timeline’s designers decided to see if the platform would auto-regulate; they became active users and contributors themselves, but refrained from moderating other people’s writing (only in a few isolated cases, entries with self-promotional content were actively removed). The timeline’s simple and clear Q&A structure and low-tech design provided a rather strict framework for contributors; this situation has probably helped in keeping submissions on topic, and in avoiding spam and abuse. While the project’s openness and multi-perspective character was much more important than the eventual production of output with specific quality criteria, enforcing such standards turned out to be unnecessary in the first place.