Doug Belshaw: Some interesting feedback from the Web Literacy Map 2.0 community survey |
Last week we at Mozilla launched a community survey containing five proposals for Web Literacy Map v2.0. I don’t want to share how positively or negatively the overall sentiment is for each proposal as the survey is still open. However, I do want to pull out some interesting comments we’ve seen so far.
There’s really good points to be made for and against each of the proposals - as the following (anonymized) examples demonstrate. While I’d like to share the whole spreadsheet, there’s people’s contact details on there, and I haven’t asked them if I can share their feedback with names attached.
What I’ve done here - and I guess you’ll have to trust me on this - is to try and give examples that show the range of feedback we’re getting.
The map can be about putting our manifesto and principles into practice. It’s a way to teach Mozilla’s beliefs.
I think this would put some people off using the map as an educational resource as they will think it has some political angle to it.
100% yes. The manifesto needs to be much more broadly spread - it is an inviting and inclusive document by nature and it is important that people engaging in our vision of web literacy understand the context from which we speak.
I often present the main ideas from the Manifesto when introducing the map and Webmaker. This aligns with my teaching practice.
While I like the manifesto, I don’t think the Web Literacy Map should be tied to it. I think that might decrease the likelihood of partners feeling ownership over it.
I think it is important for Mozilla to embrace its output – we shouldn’t shy away from taking credit for the things we work so hard to produce. But I do not believe Mozilla should try to achieve mission alignment as part of the literacy map: Literacy is a tool that helps people decide for themselves what to believe, and disagreement with Mozilla’s manifesto is a valid result of that.
Not sure if it needs to reference the manifesto, if the principles are followed when needed they would be implicit?
Definitely easier to understand off the bat.
No. Exploring, Building and Connecting are better descriptions.
Reading is not navigating. Writing is not building (necessarily). Communicating is more then participating.
Kinda torn on this. A lot of the time when literacy people from schools of education take over, they come up with weaker definitions of reading and writing, and I like the existing descriptions. But at the same time, R/W/P might make it more appealing for those folks, and trojan-horse them into using stronger standards.
Reading, writing, participating sounds more like school which is a turn off for many.
There’s a lot more than reading and writing going on.
I think reading and writing are too limited in their understood meanings and prefer the existing terms exploring and building. I prefer participating as a term over connecting.
Naw. As I said before, while it might help visualize the connections, it could quickly become a plate of spaghetti that’s not approachable or user friendly. But – there’s no reason there couldn’t be a map tool for exploring the things on the side.
I think it would seem more accessible as a map and people will stay connected/interested for longer.
There should be an easy to read way to see all of the map. It’s not so important what that looks like, although having some more map-like versions of it is interesting.
A list is not good enough and it’s necessary to show off relation between the various skills and competencies. But a true interactive map is maybe a bit to much.
It should look like whatever it needs to look like for people to understand it. If “Map” is causing confusion, rename it rather than change the form to match the name.
I like this idea a lot. It could even have “routes” like the pathways tool.
But you should provide both options - we all interpret data differently, have preferred means of reading information, so leave the list style for those who think better that way, and the map for those who take a more graphic-based approach.
Even if they’re included solely as reference points or suggested teaching angles, having them in there strengthens the entire project.
I think adding cross-cutting themes (like the vertical themes at Mozfest) will be quite confusing for some people.
Yeah, I think that’s a good way to deal with those. They’re useful as themes, and this keeps them from overpowering the track structure in the way I was worried they would. Good work!
Well if you introduce the readers to many *new* terms (that may be new to them) you risk to confuse them and they end up missing the content in the map.
An idea I discussed with Doug was concepts that could act as lens through which to view the web literacy map (i.e., mobile or digital citizenship). I support the idea of demonstrating how remix the map with cross-cutting ideas but I think the ideas should be provided as examples and users should also bring their own concepts forward.
Agreed. There are these larger themes or elements across the map. I’d be interested to see how these are represented. Perhaps this is the focus between cycles of the working group.
The problem here is that there are many other themes that could be added. Perhaps these are better emphasised in resources and activities at the point of learning rather than in the map itself?
I’d love to see a remix button, but one that integrated with GitHub to include proper historical attribution and version control. Simply spinning up multiple HTML pages without knowing who changed what when would cause more confusion I think.
Only a basic level of skill is needed to fork a repo on GitHub and edit text files directly on the website. We could provide guidelines on how to do that for people who want to contribute.
Definitely! Some of the things on the map now is strictly no-go in my context, I would love to have the ability to Remix to better match my needs.
In some contexts remixing it would be good to relate to situations better.
Perhaps if the name is required to be changed. But much better to get these people to help make the core map work for them.
Agree in principle but not many people will do this. I wouldn’t make it a high priority. Those who like to remix will always find a way.
Completely torn on this one. On the one hand it would embody the open principles on which both the map and Mozilla is built. It is also useful to be able to adapt tools for contexts. However, it could also potentially lead to mixed messages and dilution of the core ‘literacy’ principles that are in the map.
| Комментировать | « Пред. запись — К дневнику — След. запись » | Страницы: [1] [Новые] |
