Hello @Alberto, let me reply in-line:
"I have been following on the platform. I left several comments and questions, but did not manage to get a conversation going (yet?). "
Really thanks for pointing this out. This actually aligns with 2 questions that I have in mind:
We asked the students to share their ideas, in order to help them document, and help us share the work we are doing, 1. Moving on what should be the value of sharing stories, besides documentation?
- Do we agree that the idea of having the “conversation going” without having clear aim of what to expect as an outcome of the conversation, makes it hard for people to engage.
"Maybe because the same user, @wave , has authored most of those posts – the poor guy or girl must be superbusy! "
They were busy, of course, but despite their being designers, it also took them a long while to figure out how the platform works, how to react to notifications etc. I am not saying there is something that we need to fix about UI, just acknolwdging the fact that onboarding newcomers is time consuming and not very efficient.
“With all this great, very practical work it would be a shame not to be able to extract the “how to” from it. Specifically, we are interested in the community element of these solutions.”
The community element you mean here is bringing the students as community members to the platform? The only concern here is that, this is done in context of a school assignment, so there were formal excersices in order to help students formulate these ideas, and we also had tech factors controlling which idea we go for in terms of implementation. The nightscout story is very personal, it is not possible to expect the same narrative from a school exercise, even though two of the projects were inspired by real stories. (well, this is how our excercise helped them tackle issue that they actually "care"about, when possible)
On the other hand, we met people at the makerfaire, with “real” stories that they need to tackle. For example parents of kids with certain needs, or people who are part of certain communities who need to look for ideas for certain problems, we want to help them outline their stories and connect them with people who have implemented solutions for it, or parts of the solution, and whom they just don’t know they exist. The online scenarios is that people post a story and they leave it there, until organically, someone finds it (or not) then a real conversation starts, online or offline. The other scenario, is that we poke both parties, offline (or in another channel) and we ask them to carry on the conversation on the platform. Assuming that we will stick to the second scenario, and keeping in mind the on-boarding challenge which we have seen, do you think the “share your story” model is something that we will keep? Do we need an ongoing repository of stories? Or we need to move to find a structured way to have an “objective” conversation, that has clear outcome? What do you think?
Analyzing Berlin example that again, this is documentation of an existing, on-going, effort that has an offline plan. The comments are adding helpful links or giving thumbs up. I am not saying that this is not helpful, but we need to agree that this is falls on the rails of “documentation and feedback” and not “matching possibilities online” and the more we continue adding stories to an open repository with our current setting, then this is the model of engagement we are following, and which we need to acknowledge.