But rather than having the two both run, the real solution is to connect the two. So you can review what happened at a given moment later on, and then react to it....snip...I would like to see tools in which a number of polls are arranged simply on a page and people can instantly click on and then instantly see the overall result. For example, if someone on a panel says something in the room and there appears to be a disparity of agreement - or if someone raises a question - it should be possible for that question to appear instantly on the online IGF page and people both in the room and following the discussion on the Web to vote immediately.
The sore realities are however: where are these tools? Who is going to get them and install them and check they're working? And where are they going to be hosted? They should definitely all be on one website - or perhaps through mass linking through an agreed menu, they can be linked together.
I spotted your IGF discussion about a hybrid many to many communications tool. You may find what you need at www.dialoggers.com. We developed our Dialog Dashboard™ for Conflict Lab but realize it has applications beyond simulations and wanted to make it available to others. Yes, it's proprietary but you can use it without cost if the discussions are open to the public. If the discussions are private, the cost is $10 per month.The Dialog Dashboard has extensive voting capabilities - we call it polling. Each discussion post has an opportunity for community rating.I can't tell from your post what your requirements are. Let me know how we may be able to help you.I attach a pdf chart with a list of features. We are working on a new site that explains the features better. In the meantime, I'll be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Sure, we are listening and we are open to any reasonable suggestions. We will look at the alternatives you have suggested and see if they are more suitable and if we can implement them. Also we will not implement anything that is flash based, java based or does not try and conform to W3C priority 1 and 2 usability standards (priority 3 would be good as well if possible).
I really think this would be a massive advantage to the IGF but - and this is my point and my fear - I don't know where the software is, I am not a coder, and even if I had all this code working right now on my computer, I don't know how you could get it working at the IGF itself.
The trouble with any kind of poll is it is usually biased - you cannot force everyone to submit and it is hard to get a balanced opinion as a result.I have been to events where chat facilities were present, as well as video conf and webcasts. The chat is a toy - useful, but used generally by members of the audience to make rude remarks about the speakers! These would then be followed by muffled laughter from one or two laptop-weilding people in the audience.
Quote from: jmh on September 28, 2006, 12:32:13 PMOh, I've also mentioned to Chengetai that I think having a different colour for each of the four main topics could serve as a very useful pointer in countless ways. I'm going to dig up some colours and see if we can try to come to some kind of agreement.Okay, what about this for colours?
Oh, I've also mentioned to Chengetai that I think having a different colour for each of the four main topics could serve as a very useful pointer in countless ways. I'm going to dig up some colours and see if we can try to come to some kind of agreement.
I realise you are talking about polling rather than voting