« schematics of a usable web wiki | Main | Windows to Success... Take a peek if you dare! »

Defining our success.

We will know we have succeeded when our goals have been met. That is, we build a media-rich site, we include original, well-researched text, we provide links to primary resources, and we provide audio and video components. From this broad base, ‘success’ can be more clearly laid out as the accomplishment of our sub-topic goals. So, each general goal should be tailored to fit our individual areas. Within each sub-topic, the content should reflect our goal statement, and the sub-topic success can be measured independently from the other sub-topics. There are some additional goals that we should meet that are more general – for instance, our ‘media-rich’ site needs to not only be built, but must function as well. Our search feature should return relevant results, our links and audio/visual files must work, and editable areas should function as designed for users.

Updated note: Okay, reading my post I feel pretty closed off to elaborate thought compared with most of you. Mut, my basic premise is this: the idea of success is so general that defining it can become overly broad...just like we needed to clarify what topics make sense for our project given that we are an STC class, I think it is important to get down to the bare bones of success for our project. A rubric, of sorts, of minimal points which must be addressed outside of our general, individual ideas of what success really is. In completing certain points of the success rubric, I would hope that we would all learn something. For instance, just in selecting our individual topics, we all learned/continued to use del.icio.us - a success, clearly for us as individual students...but not really a point that the success of our final product will be measured against. If we don't clarify a few points to define success for our project, we may never feel like we have succeeded, as clearly the site will continue to morph and grow - and will not reach a traditional end-point.


I agree to a certain extent, but we should also want to learn something in the process. If we go through all this and we dont learn anything, what was the point? We should also strive for organization and enjoyment for the users. We want this to be easy to navagate and easy to find the information desired. Otherwise who will want to return?

I think you've made really important suggestions. Using the overall goal to inform and shape the content and structure of every layer in the site will not only keep us "on track" but will contribute to the general cohesion and coherence of the site. I took the issue of reliable technological operation for granted but reading your entry made me think about how important that is to credibility.