Date Posted: 2002-10-31 15:16:09
This seems to be another angle on my point, but I'm not sure that I follow.
I agree entirely that that this site will go the way of ORCA unless it is utilised. Certainly it has hope in that ORCA had no money available for maintainance or development, while I understand the Australia Council intend ongoing support for this site.
I Agree we need more projects listed and ongoing discussion, but is the site preventing this from happening? Or as a field are we slow to take up the opportunity??
You say "this site needed to remove barriers to participation if it wished to encourage contributions."
Please expand - what barriers are they, and how can the site remove them?
You also call it a 'dreary empty space' while I agree that the discussion area in particular looks ugly, flash looking graphic sites are reportedly those which prevent access by disadvantaging site impaired and poor computer/modem/phoneline resourced people.
Finally, what are the principles of online community building you refer to, and how can this site address them better?
I too am keen to see this site become vibrant and useful rather than a waste of money, I hope you will follow up your rant with more information and some useful, practical advice to the site organisers.
Other messages for this discussion: