I came to roughly the same conclusion as MIT’s Collaboratorium, so I’ll post a link to the Collaboratorium doc for some background.
Let’s say I theoretically have sufficient capacity to produce these mockups as working prototypes for public use, and that’s why I’m looking for feedback.
First I’ll discuss the general design background, and then I’ll break the maps down into their parts.
Target Market: I’m creating this system for general public use because more perspectives == more robust solutions. I believe in creating a dead-simple platform and eliminating all possible cognitive barriers to entry.
Barriers I’m actively eliminating:
Terminology: I’m eliminating any instances of the words debate, disagreements, argument, etc. While they may be appropriate in theory, in practice they have negative social connotations that will prevent adoption. Providing tools for disagreement doesn’t mean we have to focus on disagreement as a primary function of the system. There are other word choices that convey a more curious, problem solving type of feel.
Complexity: Simple trumps expressive, because expressive == complex, and complex == lower adoption. Expressiveness can be added later if necessary.
Distraction: Attention is a precious commodity. Too many nodes available at once, and users will feel overload.