[NGO] Anonymous content contributions, 'simple' usage methods, and various diatribe :)

[Dave Fregon]

Excuse me if this is a bit of a brain dump 8-} .. but hey .. someone
made a list! :)

The great thing about Plone, is that I always hear from community-based
and NGO groups about it. They know of it, have looked at it, but don't
necessarily understand it :)) They can, however, see the benefits in the
system. I don't think the benefits are the issue with take-up of Plone
in ngo groups, specifically the low-level grass-roots and associated
communities of which I am more familiar (tho I am doing a couple of
largish NGO sites), it's the learning curve for both admins and users in
actually using it, without a large investment in further
development/customisation.

One of the generic asks I have seen within NGO's/grass roots
organisations is the need for group 'sub-sites', and also the ability
for anonymous to contribute content, not just reply to existing content
as described in this FAQ item :

"How do you allow Anonymous posting of the News section?"
http://plone.org/documentation/faq/FaqEntry.2004-02-12.1549907319

There is another howto located here but with big warnings that scare
people :-)

http://plone.org/documentation/how-to/allowing-anonymous-users-to-add-content

maxm contributed in the comments, a method 'anonymousInvokeFactory',
which I think is something worth expanding upon .. or has anyone been
using something similar and have a system for providing this already in
a 'safe way' pre-packaged?

I think a cleaner description and methodology for Anonymous posting of
content would see a greater uptake of Plone within the grass-roots
sector of NGO's, example in 'groups' or movements such as Indymedia, and
associated independant community based projects, a workflow that
provides this out-of-the-box.

I have also provided Plone for many small to medium community groups,
and one of the first things I do, is break down the amount of options
open for people with contributing content to focus on the specific
'main' content the site invariably revolves around. Many times I have
seen Plone go into a group, and the amount of options and methodologies
are just too much for the 'jump in, jump out' approach of many users of
NGO sites, they aren't after the whole schebang. In other words, Plone
does not provide an easy way to 'lock everything down' and just open up
features slowly, without a bit of hacking the code/jumping around the
ZMI, first.

This kinda leads on from the anonymous posting bit .. NGO's are after
getting people involved, and the less barriers to contribution the
better. Plone does have a learning curve for users familiar with PHP
offerings. If someone has to spend 5-10 minutes working out all their
options and how to add a simple news item or event, they don't do it.
There's a gap that needs filling in NGO based sites, between a Member
and anonymous user, with simplifying the transition.

I usually create a portlet that contains BIG EASY LINKS to the main
content to be contributed, if the person is not logged in, it takes them
to a page about membership, if not, it creates the content in their
home. This methodology probably isn't necessarily good, as when you go
to opening up the site more, it forks the methodology of adding content
from the base plone methodology as approached by the users (thus
eventually at some point you have to show them 'how plone works') unless
you have had the chance to spend a great deal of time modifying base Plone.

I have been umming and arring about putting together a 'simple' and
'advanced' system for managing content, that is 'simple' is adding a
base portlet with the main content type(s) end users are contributing
(as configured/chosen by the admin in portal setup), and locking down
all the other features, until they choose 'advanced' in their user
properties, whereby they are able to access the actions in the
traditional 'plone way'.

from my experience, I tend to point people at plone if they are prepared
for customisation from the start (eg: an NGO with money/time/people to
do so), but not for an 'out of the box solution' for smaller groups, as
invariably the site sits empty and not used. There's a lot of difficulty
rolling out a Plone site in the way of educating all levels of users in
it's usage if there isn't an expense in time and effort spent on doing
so, or modifying it so there's no need. It covers all bases out of the
box, with no simple way to focus on one or two without a solid knowledge
of Plone and it's methodology.

Definite gaps between end users knowledge and customisation for
simplicity of usage and takeup seem to be what I come up against when
rolling or pointing folk in NGO/community based/grass-roots groups at
Plone. Yes Plone is intuitive, once you know what you are doing, but to
the end user that logs in and can suddenly do 'most everything', it's
overpowering. Hence a simple way to strip the site down to the core
functionality for members that an NGO is aiming at providing through
it's website, seems to be paramount in the takeup of its usage by it's
members, and something I find I am repetitively doing in various ways
for every group I end up working with.

What are people thoughts on this?

How have people approached catering for these two types of users (simple
vs advanced) in the one site, and the transition from a new site user to
a 'power user'?

thanks,

Dave Fregon