Cross-posted from the New Internationalist Tech blog

While asking for input on the New Internationalist redesign process the other day, one of my friends replied (in jest) "Is 'crowdsourcing' the new 'design by committee'?"

It got me thinking about why I'm excited by open and transparent design processes, and how concepts like crowdsourcing are exactly the opposite of design by committee. (Well, sometimes.)

For me, the excitement stems from a passion for learning. I like to "see inside the tent" and to learn about how others approach the same challenges I face in my work, for example: How to build successful online advocacy campaigns, How to produce compelling Web properties, and How to develop impact-filled, sustainable, Web strategies.

Open design processes?

As a quick example, here are some recent (or ongoing) redesign processes that I've enjoyed watching and learning from:

• This magazine's recent print redesign
• Redesigning Mozilla lead by Jeffrey Zeldman's team
• Drupal.org's redesign lead by Mark Boulton's team

Each one of these gives an unprecedented view into the minds of the designers, the design challenges, and the users that sit squarely on the other side of the equation.

Users have an opinion? So what?

Attending events like Designs on Democracy and BarCamp in Toronto helped open my mind to what's possible when you hand the agenda over to the participants. And helping to produce events like Penguin Day, Web of Change, and CopyCamp enabled me to see the impact of "Open Space Technology" on the ground (along with a new appreciation for just how much work open-space-style events really are).

But, through all of that, I kept faith that the "users" and "participants" have at least half of the answer. And, for me, that's the key difference between crowdsourcing ideas that impact a community -- like users, supporters, readers, or participants -- and the concept of designing by committee. In my experience: design by committee adds all of the overhead of "open" without achieving any of its efficiencies.

Back to crowdsourcing vs. design by committee

Let's leave aside for a moment the likelihood that the committee, by definition, is probably made up entirely of "people on the inside" and not users. A committee fails by only empowering a small, pre-selected, group. So there's problem No. 1: In a small group, big opinions are unnecessarily amplified.

On the flip side, an open process invites a large group of predominantly "not known" (to the organization) people to contribute ideas, input, and feedback. So here's major benefit No. 1: By nature of a having lots of voices, the volume gets turned down on the edge-case opinions.

Though it's still relatively early in the New Internationalist open redesign process, there are definitely some other identifiable benefits (and, to be honest, challenges). The big pluses in my mind are:

• Incredible insights, from incredibly smart people (and, somehow, for free!)
• Preliminary user-testing before the "real" user-testing
• Lots of points of view that usually wouldn't be heard, which can lead to real innovation

On the challenges side:

• It's entirely possible to receive lots of feedback that's not very helpful at all
• Too much feedback can be challenging to distill into actionable next steps
• And the inevitable fear that meeting the needs of "regular people" (aka non-creatives) leads to the lowest common denominator design

By far the best quote that summarizes this last point was from one of New Internationalist's own print designers, who commented:

"It's good that you invite feedback but I would urge you to follow your instincts on this one. Experience suggests that when you try to accommodate all opinions you can end up losing what was strong and distinctive about your ideas. You're the designer!"

I guess, for me, that begs the question: Does all design need to seek distinction?

A word on innovation and breaking new creative ground

When I was younger and less experienced, I was a sucker for great visual design (I lie, I still am). Today, I'm firmly of the opinion that graphic design on the Web should try to help users achieve their goals and that creative excellence shouldn't come at the expense of the users' experience.

In most cases, that means following Web conventions where possible, so that users can easily find what they're looking for. The only other dynamic I can really appreciate is the need to guide users toward the tasks that support the Web site, or organization that it represents.

That said, I'm thankful that there are some people out there that don't agree and continuously try to break new ground, and -- in the process -- bring new conventions into the fold. I'm just happy they don't do it on my watch, and I feel like those innovators should be forced to sit through a usability lab with the people who will be using their innovations. (Without fail, it's a painful and humbling experience, I assure you.)

Open vs. closed: who's the winner?

What process works best is for you to decide. Thanks to the New Internationalists open redesign process, you can take ideas away from Andy Clarke and from all of the other smart people who are contributing their insights.

Are there other great examples of "open design" processes that are happening out there on the InterWeb? If you know of one, please pop it into the comments.

P.S. While writing this, I ran across this great "view into a print redesign project" YouTube piece by Toronto creative Alan Smith. There's something I love about being able to get inside a creative mind, it's addictive. More like this!

Cross-posted from the New Internationalist Tech blog

This message brought to you by SaveOurNet.ca. Please take a moment to send your comments to the CRTC by February 16th, 2009:

With your assistance, we have helped propel Net Neutrality from an obscure issue into a national effort to secure open and equal access to the Internet for all Canadians. NOW is the time to let the CRTC know where YOU stand on Internet freedom: http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/n7qAbqF1iPFM/

Your submissions to the CRTC will be considered in the "traffic management" hearings held later this year. Please take a few seconds to send your comments to the CRTC before the February 16th deadline: http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/n7qAbqF1iPFM/

We must convince the CRTC to stop big telecoms from controlling our access to the Internet. Bell, Rogers and other large ISPs cannot be allowed to continue serving their own interests by "throttling" Internet traffic.

The decisions made by the CRTC will signal Canada's digital destiny. Your submission could make the difference in whether we have a closed gatekeeper Internet or open online access and innovation.

Remember that you must make your submission before Feb. 16. Please take a few seconds to tell the CRTC that you alone should control your Internet surfing. http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/n7qAbqF1iPFM/

We've come this far; it's time to stop Internet throttling for good!

Today is the last day to have your voice heard on the CRTC's "Diversity of Voices Proceeding." Please take a moment today to send in your own comments -- the future of Canadian media depends on it.

Looking south of our borders, we can see the impact of the concentration of media ownership; the Telecommunications Act of 1996 lead the way by allowing a company to own multiple media properties (including multiple properties in the same market). However, thanks to the work of the Prometheus Project, a further loosening by the FTC was stopped in 2004. The compelling argument for not loosening the regulations further: concentration of ownership means less ownership diversity. Put in plain words, it means that people like you and I will not have access to the public airwaves. (And, if you're part of a traditionally "under-represented" community -- forget about it.)

So, if the media remains in the hands of the old guard, what happens to the under-represented views? Views from the Majority World, women, other political ideologies, and critics of the status quo? Well, basically, you don't get them. I haven't done the digging required to see if there's any research available on this, but my bet would be that there isn't a lot of women-owned Canadian radio or TV stations; double that for people of colour.

Many will point to the Internet as the alternative to corporate-owned media, as our safe place from increasing the impact of media mergers that streamline the life out of daily news. However, that is simply a distraction, and as quaint an argument as invoking the CBC as protector of the public voice. Again, the US has lead the way in demonstrating that the "Blogosphere" -- if you look across the spectrum of the A-list bloggers -- is still presenting the (predominantly Caucasian, and almost entirely male) established and entrenched perspective on most issues. Add to that the "digital divide" that still exists right here in Canada -- especially when it comes to computer literacy -- and you've got less diversity online than you do in the traditional media marketplace. One thing is for sure: the Internet will not be Canada's saviour.

These airwaves are owned by the Canadian people, so radio should not be controlled exclusively by corporate, or foreign, interests. The cable and fibre that delivers TV to Canadian homes would not have been possible without the infrastructure -- roads, electricity, and human resources -- that has been paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Even the printed news benefits from the collective resources that belong to all Canadians, or that have been subsidized by Canadian tax dollars. Corporate media gets a free ride on Canadian roads: it's that simple.

And what do Canadians get in return? We get McRadio and McTV. We get flavourless, un-critical, mass-produced news. We get stories that don't upset advertisers. We get stories that play to a national audience, when what we need more of is local reporting. We get Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, when what we need more of is objective reporting on issues that effect Canadians.

Just take an hour to catch-up on the Conrad Black trial proceedings to get a sense of the intentions -- and the motivations! -- of corporate media moguls. If they're not trying to influence editorial with their own political bias, then they're trying to stretch every last advertising dollar as far as it can go. The result of this streamlining is dwindling and overworked editorial staff and less resources in the newsroom for original reporting, which all leads to more press-released-based reporting without time or resources for fact-checking or proper editorial oversight. This all leads to a shift toward the safe "middle ground" on all of the issues (don't want to upset those advertisers), or hard right into the fast lane of the corporate PR machine.

What Canada needs from the CRTC, and from our elected officials, is well-articulated policy that benefits all Canadians, and not just the Canadians who own large media outlets. We need to protect the diversity of our media ecosystem, and that means more financial support for community-based media and public broadcasters, and less "voluntary" compliance with rules, regulations, and contributions to community media funds. And, finally, we need policy that ensures that large, corporate, media companies are not allowed to continue to consolidate their holdings and to monopolize markets at the expensive of Canadian programming and a diversity of voices.

Today is the last day to send your comments to the CRTC on these issues. You can either use the pre-filled letter provided by the Canadians for Democratic Media, or use the CRTC's comment submission form. My (less colourfully worded) comment submission is attached below for reference.