ABSTRACT
Physical environments of cities continually change, responding to varying needs of citizens, businesses, government and organizations. These adaptations happen for many reasons, ranging from aesthetic improvement to functional infrastructural development. As the Raleigh Metropolitan Area continues to grow at a staggering rate, citizens engaged in a democratic society will be asked to participate in dialogues about proposals for development in their everyday environments. Current types of civic participation in planning often take the form of public workshops, presentations, public hearings, and online commenting forums. I believe design can provide new ways to present perspectives and provocations at this stage of city planning while respecting existing procedures and policies.

This project seeks to conceptualize a set of digital tools that propose alternative ways for citizens to participate in city planning. In this new participatory environment, citizens will have spaces to interact with city information, view augmented planning proposals at physical sites, discuss issues and opinions with other citizens and city representatives, and ultimately take action to contribute to the future of their city. Location-based technologies provide opportunities to create links among physical sites, planning information, and discussion. Storytelling enables different components of the designed system to be framed within possible scenarios during citizens’ everyday lives. Levels of individual engagement often change over time, and are affected by other media channels and social interactions. Because planning operates at many different levels, tools are tailored for particular stages and scales in the planning process.

PROCESS
CityPlan was completed in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Graphic Design at North Carolina State University. The four investigations displayed in this post are the result of a long process; key moments leading up to these results have been thematic studies and scenarios, building system diagrams, and presenting progress at the NCSU Graduate Research Symposium. The final document, accessible online, provides comprehensive documentation of the different work produced for CityPlan. Slides from a presentation of the project can also be viewed.

Each investigation, presented below, is an abbreviated scenario from the final document that highlights CityPlan’s core behaviors. Each scenario highlights a different point in time during two citizen’s (Glenn and Susan) experiences engaging in planning issues in the City of Raleigh; as time progress, each citizen becomes more active and familiar with CityPlan.

INVESTIGATION ONE
Initial Engagement
On a Saturday morning, Glenn walks with his wife, Angela, and his three-year-old son, Cliff, downtown to the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. After Glenn and Angela guide Cliff around the museum, they grab lunch at the museum’s café on the top floor. Glenn isn’t very hungry and chooses to get coffee instead; Cliff eats quickly and is eager to see the dinosaur skeletons again. Angela takes Cliff back downstairs, while Glenn finishes his coffee. He takes a copy of the News & Observer from the counter and scans over it, looking for interesting articles.

In the local section, Glenn sees that the City of Raleigh has released the Peace Street Corridor Visioning Study, a document anticipating ways to improve an area that is not far from Glenn’s house. The city is also seeking citizen comments on the study. After reading the brief article, Glenn sees a small row of markers and the City of Raleigh’s seal. He sees that he can view the anticipated changes with his smartphone at the actual site of the study, and can be reminded by setting a time-based or location-based reminder. He scans the marker to set up a site visit reminder, and is prompted with a welcome screen on his phone.

Glenn reads the welcome text and continues to the next screen, prompting him to select either a time-based or location-based reminder. He chooses a location-based reminder; immediately after, he is prompted to choose the distance from the site where he would prefer to be reminded. Choosing .25 mile from the site, Glenn continues and confirms the information is correct. A confirmation screen with a photo of the location and welcoming text appears before he exits the application.

INVESTIGATION TWO
Augmenting Planning Sites
On Monday, two days after Glenn sets up a site visit, he receives a reminder for the Peace Street Corridor Visioning Study on his smartphone during his walk to work. He doesn’t have much time, so he decides to wait on visiting the corridor. He will be prompted again when he is near the site. Two days later, Glenn is on his way to work in the morning and receives another prompt. This time Glenn has just enough time to visit the site.

After accepting the prompt, he is asked to choose between two options: participating in the Visioning Study, which displays recommendations from the study he read about, or a Discussion mode, which allows citizens to view all proposals, discussions, and other issues that are related to the site. Glenn chooses to participate in the Visioning Study, and is prompted on the procedures for viewing key recommendations. As the screen transitions into an augmented view, Glenn sees overlaid renderings of development recommendations on the site. A map view also lets him see each recommendation in proximity to his current location. Glenn selects a rendering of the sidewalk he is standing on; information appears on the screen about the need for a Pedestrian and Bike Facility. Glenn reads short descriptions that detail the recommendation, and sees that he can provide feedback to the city.

After providing an initial reaction, he walks towards another destination and sees a rendering of a transit station across the street. Glenn selects the recommendation for a Downtown Transit Station and views the information. After viewing each recommendation and giving feedback for the two previously mentioned, he views a checklist that shows completed and remaining recommendations.

INVESTIGATION THREE
Facilitating Deliberation
After reading an article announcing a presentation by Raleigh City Council about the newly-released Wake County Transit Plan, Susan decides to attend the presentation in downtown Raleigh during her lunch break. Glenn also chooses to attend the presentation after hearing about it from a neighbor. As Council members introduce the plan, they mention CityPlan’s function as a tool for discussion about planning issues. Citizens and city officials in the audience are already discussing their initial reactions on CityPlan’s discussion tool in the first thread about the Wake County Transit Plan. A planner from the City of Raleigh asks for early opinions on the plan and attaches a map with proposed transportation routes and improvements.

Earlier in the week, Susan had set up a notification for updates from CityPlan on her desktop computer regarding the recently announced transit plan; she receives a notification on her phone at the presentation, and looks at the first discussion started on the plan. As the presentation opens up for questions, the audience grows restless. Susan, sitting next to Glenn, introduces herself and shows him the CityPlan discussion activity on her smartphone. A planner has posted a map in the discussion thread that identifies the changes proposed in the plan; Susan and Glenn view the map on Susan’s device, showing each other how the plan could affect their respective neighborhoods. Glenn shows her the Peace Street Corridor, pointing to the area where he recently did a site visit. Susan zooms out, reorienting the map near her neighborhood. She was not aware of these proposed changes in her area before. After they talk, Susan interacts with CityPlan by herself, responding to a point in a discussion. To state her opinion, she selects her neighborhood in the map view and adds a brief annotation, explaining how the plan could affect her. After her response is completed, she looks over recent activity in the discussion thread.

INVESTIGATION FOUR
Visualizing Planning Information
Susan becomes aware of the ability to visualize planning information in CityPlan from the City Council presentation detailed in the previous scenario. After opening the mapping tool, Susan sees that there is a search function. She remembers that Glenn mentioned his site visit at the Peace Street Corridor; she searches for the area. After CityPlan displays the Peace Street Corridor on the map, Susan chooses to turn on layers of planning information. At this point, she is most interested in how transportation in Raleigh may change over time, so she begins by selecting layers for Priority Pedestrian Streets and Bike Lanes. She views these layers on the map, adjusting the timeline to see what changes could occur at certain points in the future. She zooms in on the corridor; at a level of greater detail, more icons representing particular plans appear. Susan selects the Pedestrian and Bike facility icon, and an overlay with planning information appears.

Susan wonders what other changes may occur in transportation; she selects the Greenway and Light Rail layers. As she views the layers, she begins to see that changes occurring throughout the city are interconnected. With more traffic and a need for public transportation, facilities for pedestrians will need to be proposed. After viewing plans in the area she zooms out, looking at the Peace Street Corridor in relationship to more of the city; she also adjusts the timeline to see possible Light Rail developments. Eager to see how nearby areas in her community may change in the future, she zooms in near her neighborhood.

During the course of the charette, students engaged in interviews at the post office, audited existing service models, found case studies they felt were good service models. They continued their investigation by developing a possible visual identity, an online mailing system, and a kiosk interface that could exist in post offices and other retail establishments.

The following outcomes are the collaborative work of Sarah Atkinson, Dustin Rhodes, and Kirsten Southwell.

FINAL OUTCOME

PROCESS DIAGRAMS AND SCREENS

A full-scale PDF version of the poster can be view here.

STAKEHOLDER MAP
Stakeholder maps are an accessible and quick visualization that outlines internal and external stakeholders in a service. By seeing a broad representation of all possible stakeholders, it is easy to identify who may be underrepresented. For each study, this diagram will help illustrate what stakeholders and relationships investigations consider.

DIGITAL TOUCHPOINTS
The scope of digital touchpoints for the designed tool includes feature phones, smartphones and mobile devices, laptop computers, and desktop computers. At each of these access points, the differences between devices afford different interactions. This matrix articulates what tool-specific actions are possible at these touchpoints.

EXPERIENCE MAP
This diagram serves three main functions: to identify key stages that a citizen will experience throughout a planning issue, list core behaviors at each stage, and anticipate what citizens may be thinking and feeling. Although the stages and content listed are broad, they help give a general overview of the tool’s functions and how they change over time.

CITIZEN JOURNEYS
The following journeys outline key moments in two citizen’s engagement with a planning issue and their participation with the tool. Stages from the Experience Map are adapted for these scenarios to chart where interactions fit in a larger scope. Some moments from these journeys frame the context for design investigations. These moments are identified and presented in more detail in the scripts of each investigation.

SYSTEM DIAGRAMS

WIREFRAMES
The following wireframes represent the investigations I have decided to prototype for my project. This is the first stage articulating what kinds of interfaces and information may exist on a device and how an interface could exist across components.

VISUAL STUDY ONE
How citizens may become aware of the designed tool through other media channels that address site-specific planning issues in some manner.

Key Readings
Dourish, P. and Bell, G. (2011). Divining a Digital Future: Mess and Mythology in Ubiquitous Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

VISUAL STUDY TWO
How deliberation between the city and citizens can be facilitated.

Key Reading
Lim, M. and Kann, E. (2008). Chapter 3: Politics: Deliberation, Mobilization, and Networked Practices of Agitation. In Networked Publics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Supporting Readings
Habermas, Jürgen. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere : An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

VISUAL STUDY THREE
How and when planning information can be visualized, augmented, and interacted with.

Key Readings
Hanzl, M. (2007). “Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: A review of experiments and potentials.” Design Studies, 28(3), 289-307.

Supporting Readings
Lynch, Kevin. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: Technology Press.

Abrams, J. and Hall, P (Eds.). (2006). Else/Where: Mapping New Cartographies of Networks and Territories. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

The success of these platforms is not independent from larger cultural changes, particularly the notion of collaborative consumption. Botsman and Roo define this phenomenon, where “The old stigmatized C’s associated with coming together and “sharing”—cooperatives, collectives, and communes—are being refreshed and reinvented into appealing and valuable forms of collaboration and community” (Botsman & Rogers, 2010, p. XV). Although the authors consider this movement to be primarily associated with business models (which YouTube, at its very core, is), they acknowledge digital culture as a tremendous influence in shaping current mindsets about sharing and ownership. Explaining the breadth of this term, Botsman and Rogers note, “Simply put, people are sharing again with their community—be it an office a neighborhood, an apartment building, a school, or a Facebook network” (p. XV). Sharing is alive and well, and YouTube statistics prove it; in 2009, the platform was serving more than 1 billion videos every day (Gauntlett, p. 83).

Although sites like YouTube are often referred to as ‘online communities,’ it is important to question if they actually are communities. Drawing from Tunstall’s elements of how community is experienced, speculations about the interaction of these ‘communities’ at large can be analyzed (2008). Can a platform without focused content provide the necessary experiential elements for people that define a community, or does there need to be something more?

Building off of the perspective that a ‘digital creative platform’ is not a community in itself, what types communities exist on these platforms and how do they interact? Because YouTube itself is massive and contains substantial amounts of data that can be gathered and analyzed, designers can utilize visualization techniques to seek patterns and relationships that may indicate possible community formations. This is referred to as ‘exploratory data analysis,’ where the aim of the analysis is not to find definitive answers, but to decide on what questions should be asked as a next step in research (Henry, Goodell, Elmqvist, & Fekete, 2007, p. 240). By looking at activity on a platform, many questions will arise.

Methods chosen to understand online communities will require detailed consideration of many aspects, one being an extension of the bonds between community members. Social roles indicate the different positions people play in a community and can be conceptualized from both structural and functional theories. Functional role theory focuses on behaviors of actors, whereas structural role theory emphasizes behavioral patterns shared by members of similar social positions and considers larger roles in a system (Pfeil, Svangstu, Ang, & Zaphiris, 2011, pp. 326-327). Determining general roles in the observed community can be informed by data and qualitative content analysis to characterize different communities that exist on a digital creative platform.

Finally, the design of future digital creative platforms can be understood by recognizing the flexibility required for users to pursue new creative activity while acknowledging that general community structures and functions exist. It will be up to designers to analyze the multifaceted needs of platforms and determine how certain communities may benefit or suffer from different design decisions.

Is a Digital Creative Platform a Community?
YouTube offers expansive features for participants on the platform to connect with each other including commenting, channel subscription, ‘liking’ videos, sharing videos, having a profile, and creating video responses, among many others. All of these functions provide opportunities for visible user activity on the system, making individual interactions also visible on a global network. In analyzing the general structure of YouTube and its common uses, Gauntlett concludes, “People use YouTube to communicate and connect, to share knowledge and skills, and to entertain. They use the community features of the site to support each other and engage in debates, and to generate the characteristics of a ‘gift economy’” (2011, p. 95). It’s clear that functions designed and implemented on YouTube can foster community, but at what scales do they occur?

Although large platforms are often referred to as ‘online communities,’ it’s important to take a step back and examine this word choice in more detail. Can a website with over 1 billion video views per day and no specific mission regarding content really be a community? Dori Tunstall, following Victor Turner’s 1973 analysis of communitas, offers a framework for how the feeling of community is experienced. This framework consists of five elements: agency, life goals, historical consciousness, organizational structure, and relationships (Tunstall, 2008). While each of these elements are necessary for someone to experience community, detailing each one extends beyond the scope of this essay is prohibitive; thus “life goals” will serve as an example of where community fits in digital creative platforms.

Life goals are “People’s articulation of what matters most to them,” such as having an impact, supporting friends of family, or helping other people (Tunstall, 2008). These goals are ambitious and relate closely to individuals, requiring deliberate action to work towards desired results. By interacting with a platform that does not have a direct purpose for content, it’s hard to imagine that an individual would be able to attain these aspirations without participating in smaller, more direct communities (located within the platform). Because YouTube “encourage[s] users to express their creativity in whatever way they choose – within a particular framework, and general type of content,” uses likely exist that designers of the platform never considered (Gauntlett, p. 88).

Acknowledging that YouTube can’t provide a communal experience without the content produced by users, it seems more appropriate to consider it as a ‘platform for online communities to develop’ than an ‘online community.’ Taking this mindset into consideration, what ways might communities form on digital creative platforms? Knowing what questions to ask in order to investigate this issue further may be difficult, but the affordances found on a platform like YouTube offer ways of gathering information to sort, filter, and present patterns and findings that can lead to insightful questions.

Visualizing Relationships and Activity in Digital Creative Platforms
Data lends itself to be represented in visual forms that can provide clarity amongst enormous data sets and lead to insights that cannot be arrived at without visual analysis. In the article 20 Years of Four HCI Conferences: A Visual Exploration, the authors utilize information visualization techniques and data from conference publications to generate further questions about the Human-Computer Interaction community, including the “influence of different research, institutions, and conferences; the groups of researchers who collaborate strongly; and the wide ranging collaborations between them” (Henry, Goodell, Elmqvist, & Fekete, 2007, pp. 247-248). These categories of information are not much different than the organizations of Web 2.0 platforms: affiliations are often based on groups (and Channels or Playlists in YouTube), discussions and comments occur between people and groups, and group affiliations may span between or within other groupings.

At its core, Gauntlett explains that YouTube functions as “a database website, which invites people to add data as files, comments, tags, and links between different bits of information (notably user profiles and video content)” (p. 89). Analyzing this online platform from a technical perspective affirms that activity performed though a platform is data that can help understand the use of the platform itself. Because of the variation of community features that exist on YouTube, a range of data can be reconfigured to search for patterns and structures that allude to how communities come together.

Henry et. al utilize exploratory data analysis, a research method that is unconventional in that its purpose is not to generate specific results as much as identifying next steps. This process is based on acquiring broad, informative knowledge.

“Exploratory analysis is based on several general questions: What are the global trends? What are the local trends? What are the outliers? The great strength of exploratory analysis is its ability to raise unexpected questions. The drawback is that analysis can become a very drawn-out process, as the answer to one question raises many others that require further analysis” (Henry, Goodell, Elmqvist, & Fekete, 2007, p. 240).

Summarizing the good and bad of exploratory analysis, this statement frames how useful information can be discovered, although it may require significant patience and time. This process “seeks to generate and evaluate hypotheses […] interactively during the exploration” (Henry, Goodell, Elmqvist, & Fekete, p. 246). Understanding the general use of YouTube, especially what information and activity communities may form around, can serve as a start to this process. According to Gauntlett, “makers [on YouTube] wish to communicate and connect with an audience, often on an emotional or intimate level, to share their knowledge or insights, to entertain and – in a perfectly valid sense – to show off, and in doing so, to try to connect or have an impact on others” (p. 93). Taking this statement into account, looking at data such as replies to other user’s videos could indicate areas of interests and motivations for participating in the platform.

Although an exploratory analysis will lead to even more questions and expose the complexity in understanding the current landscape, understanding how communities form in popular platforms will be inevitable in the future. Design’s role can extend beyond the actual design of platforms and into the design of research and visualization methods to help comprehend information.

Conventional ‘node and link’ diagrams indicate the strengths of relationships by depicting networks where with the width of lines demonstrates the strengths of relationships between nodes. How are people interacting with digital creative platforms? Are there common behaviors between participants? Do groups frequently form based on interests, or are relationships outside of the platform (i.e. family) also main drivers for some online communities? Discovering the various roles users play by analyzing behavioral patterns and connections across platforms can indicate ways in which different communities may organize.

Defining Roles in Digital Creative Platforms
General observations about the complexity of people and communities can help researchers understand large data sets by determining roles people generally play in communities. Because a digital creative platform consists of all user-generated content and could demonstrate community formation for many reasons, defining roles may be a daunting task. In the article Social Roles in an Online Support Community for Older People, the authors develop roles from the content analysis of an online forum and combine findings from both structural and functional role theories (Pfeil, Svangstu, Ang, & Zaphiris, 2011, p. 327). Together, these two theories describe coherent roles that focus both on behavior and social status. One example of a social role from this study is the passive member, who “participated in self-disclosure but not support” (p. 342). This role may not be transferable to all YouTube communities, but it is easy to imagine how members fitting a similar profile could exist on the platform.

Although YouTube is likely composed of numerous different types of communities (unlike the specificity of an online support community for a specific cause), defining social roles could be invaluable in understanding what makes communities work and how communities differ structurally. For example, communities centered on sharing special personal moments with close friends and family probably display different interactions than political opinion video bloggers may, such as replying to other’s arguments by video and justifying their positions.

Although it is difficult to discuss social roles on YouTube in too much detail at this point in time, Gauntlett alludes to Video celebrities; individuals who have reached mainstream media success “not by acting as aloof stars, but by being community participants. They invite and respond to comments on the site, make links with others, and refer to community comments, responses, and events within the videos themselves” (2011, p. 94). These celebrities seem plausible as a role that could exist in certain communities. Another role in a much different type of community could be developed from what Patricia Lange calls ‘videos of affinity,’ recordings made specifically for friends and family that are not about reaching a wide audience (p. 91). Addressing the range of profiles that could be found on YouTube would require exploration and time, but could lead to new ways of thinking about how such platforms could be designed based on the many roles that digital creative platforms support.

Implications for the Design of Digital Creative Platforms
Throughout this article, the possibilities of understanding the communities and social roles that make up digital creative platforms have been presented. Regardless of the nuances between different communities, at a large scale, designers must keep in mind the general audience first: “[YouTube’s] dominance in the online video field is due to its emphasis on establishing its framework as one which primarily supports a community of participation and communication amongst everyday users” (Gauntlett, 2011, p. 90). Designing for everyday users not only defines an audience, but also a larger mindset that values the contributions of anyone who feels the need to make something.

Henry Jenkins suggests that YouTube offers “strong social incentives” to make and share, and users are inspired by “the emotional support of a community eager to see their productions” (Gauntlett, p. 95). The success of YouTube indicates that something must be going right; if this is the case, does a platform remain idle and let participants develop new directions, or do its designers need to examine how its context of use changes and evolves along with participants? This question does not have an easy answer, but it brings up a critical point to consider for the design of digital creative platforms. An evolving system would behave dramatically different, adapting to new participant innovations and constantly redefining what the platform is.

From their study of social roles, Pfeil et. al conclude that one issue to consider is “understanding different types of users and designing to support their needs” (p. 344). Do designers need to consider how a family sharing personal experiences might interact on a digital creative platform versus someone aiming to participate in their attempt to become a video celebrity? Depending on the structure of the communities, and their existing roles, ideal interactions with a platform for these two types of people would be much different.

Conclusion
As digital creative platforms develop over time, individuals will find new uses, relationships, and generate new kinds of content. Although these platforms provide a framework for participation, are agnostic about content and foster community, designers need to understand and evaluate changing conditions presented by community participation. As a step forward in understanding diverse needs and roles in platforms, visual research into the formation of communities and social roles that emerge can indicate specific situations for designers to consider. Such research will help designers make informed choices about the best ways to structure platforms, how many different needs should be considered, and how future communities can emerge from platform use.

Bibliography
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. New York: Harper Business.

Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is Connecting. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Henry, N., Goodell, H., Elmqvist, N., & Fekete, J.-D. (2007). “20 Years of Four HCI Conferences: A Visual Exploration.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction , 23 (3), 239-285.

Pfeil, U., Svangstu, K., Ang, C. S., & Zaphiris, P. (2011). “Social Roles in an Online Support Community for Older People.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction , 27 (4), 323-347.

Tunstall, D. (2008). Communitas (following Turner, 1973).

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH CULTURE FOR STUDENTS
Students need comprehensive and accessible entry points to understand the larger discourse around design research.

COMPLEXITY OF DESIGN PROBLEMS
Observing that most design problems occur at systems and community levels in his 1970 book Design Methods, J. Christopher Jones determined that the role of designers is complex. John Thackara’s 2005 book In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World also addresses the issues of designing for complex problems in a contemporary context, focusing on the ethics and responsibilities of innovation.

Because complexity is a necessary part of design, research methods and perspectives are vast and always changing. The best research methods are those that fit the context of the design problem. For students to be able to responsibly choose methods or collaborate with researchers in other disciplines, they must be aware of the purposes for existing methods and the perspectives experts hold on them.

SITUATING RESEARCH
Because design problems are complex, students must understand that they can’t research a problem from every perspective. Acknowledging areas that students do not research is equally important. Placing a student’s research within a larger framework creates an awareness of other possible ways to approach problems. Understanding the larger context of research allows designers to look at their work relationally. In collaborative work, mapping specific areas for each group member encourages a holistic approach appropriate to the context of the problem.

Research Type Definitions
Phenomenological: Describes experiences as they are lived
Positivist: Seeks to find objective truth
Relativist: Acknowledges the researcher’s own perspective

CHOOSING METHODS
After identifying research areas students see fit for a project, they need accessible introductions and resources to relevant information. Both Design Research: Methods and Perspectives edited by Brenda Laurel and Design Studies: Theory and Research in Graphic Design edited by Audrey Bennett are strong general resources that offer glimpses of perspectives held and methods used that are relevant to design.

RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Research can live on through presentation and visualization, acting as part of the design process as well as a method for evaluating learning outcomes. Students can reflect and report on their decisions and transfer knowledge to future projects.

By making research presentable, future students and others participating in the design research culture can learn from student work. Distributing accessible research would place students as participants in the larger design discourse.

PROPOSAL CONTENT
The presentation was structured to highlight questions, introduce relevant case studies, show small studies, and what I plan to do next. A handout was also distributed with a supplemental abstract and selected bibliography.

PROPOSAL ABSTRACT
Physical environments of Cities continuously change, responding to varying needs of citizens, business, and organizations. These alterations happen for many reasons, ranging from aesthetic improvement to functional infrastructural developments. The development of the Raleigh metropolitan area is particularly interesting because it had the second highest growth rate in the United States between 2000 and 2010. As this area continues to grow at a staggering rate, citizens will be asked to voice their opinions about proposals for change in their everyday environments. Current forms of civic participation in planning often take the form of public workshops, information sessions and presentations, public hearings, and online commenting forms. I believe design can present new perspectives and provocations at this stage of City planning while respecting existing and anticipated public policies.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Calhoun, C. J. (Ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere.
• Dourish, P. and Bell, S. Divining a Digital Future: Mess and Mythology in Ubiquitous Computing.
• Habermas, J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.
• Lynch, K. The Image of the City.

NEXT STEPS
• Define key points for the presentation of geographic information
• Explore relationships between physical sites and augmentation
• Develop a process diagram for deliberation

TOUCHPOINTS AND SCOPE
Defining categories helps define the scope of my investigations and ways that the designed tool may be used. Connections across points (one in each categories) identify possible scenarios for investigation.

SITE-SPECIFIC INTERACTIONS
Developing a sequence of interactions at the physical site of a proposed location offers a glimpse of the way a citizen might interact with information. Thinking about these scenarios will help consider how information is represented and structured for a sequence of interactions.

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING VISUALIZATIONS
This audit helped understand existing approaches to visualizing planning information as well as identify future opportunities. Two documents, The 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Raleigh and the Peace Street Visioning Study by J. Davis Architects were analyzed because of their representations of areas I will be looking at for my research and investigations.