An Open Call for Feedback: The Civil Registry

Last month, we published this post to illustrate how the Civil Registry is designed to incentivize the community to uphold the Civil Constitution’s ethical journalism standards.

Since then, our design team has been iterating the layout of the Registry. Today, we’d like to share it with you.

The Civil Registry is a community-vetted list on which all Civil Newsrooms must be listed to unlock access publishing rights on the platform (more on how to apply to launch a Newsroom on Civil here). It’s also the destination where CVL token holders can challenge a newsroom, vote for/against a given challenge, file an appeal, and challenge a granted appeal to veto a Civil Council decision with a supermajority. The Civil Registry is what will make Civil one of the first, truly consumer-facing applications of blockchain technology.

With that in mind, we hope you can help by giving us feedback on its design and calls to action. Our product design lead, Nguyet Vuong, is specifically interested in answering the following two questions:

• Is our language clear? Do terms like “Approved Newsrooms” and “Applications in Progress” make sense?
• Are the calls to action clear? Is the process of voting for/against a challenged Newsroom intuitive?

Basic User Flow: Challenging a Newsroom

The Civil Constitution’s system of checks and balances and the Newsroom lifecycle were the framework to determine a feasible, user-centric design for challenging a Newsroom.

In Process Applications on the Civil Registry

When a prospective Newsmaker applies to start a Newsroom on Civil, their application will be held “In Progress” while undergoing the community’s review. During this period, CVL token holders will be able to pose public questions and discussion points about the prospective Newsroom. Under “View Details,” each Newsroom will have its own page with an “About” section that will give the reader the opportunity to read the Newsroom’s proposed mission statement as well as bios of the prospective Newsmakers.

Challenging a Newsroom

If a CVL holder decides that the prospective Newsroom is somehow violating the ethics standards outlined in the Civil Constitution, they can submit a challenge by staking a minimum number of tokens that will be held against an equal amount of the Newsroom’s deposit.

To challenge a Newsroom, CVL token holders will input a statement and a token stake. Please note that “1,000 CVL tokens” is placeholder text; actual required token stake amount is not yet determined.

There are three possibilities for action in the Challenge Phase: Accepting Votes, Revealing Votes and Request to Appeal. In this phase, token holders will be asked to answer the question, “Should this newsroom remain or be removed on the Civil Registry?”

Page shows Future Newsroom’s profile when it is Accepting Votes Under Challenge. CVL holders will stake tokens to determine whether the Newsroom is in breach of the Civil Constitution.

The user will then be asked to confirm his or her vote for the Newsroom to remain on the Civil Registry.

After the “Accepting Vote” period, the “Reveal” voting process begins. CVL token holders will come back to the “Under Challenge” Newsroom’s page and use a passcode to reveal their vote so that it can be counted in the result.

In the “Reveal Votes” portion of challenging a Newsroom, CVL holders will be asked to Reveal their votes to delegate whether or not the Newsroom in question is in breach of the Civil Constitution.

This process of Accepting and Revealing votes comes with its limitations, and when the platform launches, Reveal Votes round will require a unique passcode. The result from this flow is that the Newsroom will be accepted or rejected by the community.

Based on the screenshots in this section, is the language here clear? Do terms like “Approved Newsrooms” and “Applications in Progress” make sense? Sound off your opinions in the comments, or better yet, email Nguyet.

Designing for Accessibility

Colors, fonts, and layouts are deliberate in making the Registry as inclusive and legible as possible. Small decisions — such as the ability to toggle between card and table views — were done to make the Registry more friendly for those with glaucoma or tunnel vision.

Colors and texts were purposely used for platform visibility

Generally, across each Application tab, oldest challenges appear first, but can be sorted by newest to oldest while filtering options between Accepting Votes/Revealing Votes/Requesting Appeal.

This interface intentionally has tabs read left to right to correspond with the beginning, middle, and end of the challenge process.

Planning for Iteration

The UI of each page is meant to be conventional enough for anyone to use. Because its underlying blockchain technology can be complicated, Civil’s platform is meant to be intuitive to guide people through the voting and challenge processes.

Gathering feedback through in-depth interviews and surveys has been the most useful tool for making iteration possible. Before user testing, Nguyet defines one or two goal outcomes, and asks her audience questions that guide a revised design. Her design process is guided by observing, reflecting, and making the product fit the closest version of what is “right” for the Civil community.

Her goal with this Registry is to empower the Civil community to participate in curating quality journalism. So the next step for you? Let Nguyet know what you think. Thanks in advance — your feedback is invaluable to making this Registry work.