It’s nothing emotional, it’s political. If you think design is not political, maybe you should have a look at urban furniture or, if you think this broader context is too far away from what you’re trying to do: look up dark patterns, and tell me again I’m being emotional and out of context.
I agree with that, however your tone is not appropriate for me to hold a discussion with you so I will pass on that until we can have a civil discussion around the matter.
Thanks for the suggestions. I will reiterate on it and post another version to gather feedback around.
@how let’s be civil and focus on the task at hand. 
@elioqoshi has put a lot of time into the manifesto, and the discussion is productive, so I understand that what seems like a thread derailment isn’t so nice.
1 Like
I personally don’t think “useful” adds much to it and is quite biased as a word. What’s useful for you might not be for me. In that kind of sense every software is useful to somebody out there. The software being usable is not widespread however.
Fair enough. I guess Privacy is enough of an umbrella term.
I’d suspect generally people we collaborate with so it might be better to replace it with “collaborate”
Good point. I guess I wanted to say complement. Tool/Methods would be indeed a better fit for process. In practice it means whatever method respects a user’s privacy. We don’t need to go into details here as long as the general notion is clear 
Yeah indeed. I’d prefer using some negative form of the same wording as in “is not withheld in secret” or something. What do you think?
Agreed.
+1
Indeed. Same goes for “classic” usability, which often hinges on the user’s familiarity with concepts. And while a hammer can be very usable, in a situation in which us need to tie a screw, it is not very useful. So one thing I deal a lot with is finding out (in less obvious situations) what might be useful for people.
I’d go with the positive “do…”-wording.
- I think often sharing, including choosing good format, platform, giving context to make sense of information and checking for privacy sensitive information is an effort that needs to be made
- Following from that it might often not be the secrecy easily implied in a negative answer, but uncertainty or lack of time.
…so I would write something like this:
"We teach skills and share knowledge and information freely. We use standard compliant formats, if possible "
(I though about the formats, and I think also people who don’t use open tools /formats (yet) can move design culture forward by sharing and licensing their data (as in the next point), thus the “possible”)
Regarding “participative…”: I hinted above that I find a lot of FOSS processes are not participative. However, us/me pushing for “more” of participatory design, might not be helpful, if people have no idea what we mean by it. One short, nice aspect, which does not prescribe specific processes or methods is “mutual learning between creators and users of the product”. Maybe we could write:
“They should go hand in hand with participative design processes in which creators of the software and users learn from each other’s expertise.”
1 Like
We worked a lot on the manifesto as you can see from the pad! Participants of the most recent session shaping it were: @bumbleblue @elioqoshi @tereza @cameralibre @renata and me.
This is our current state and we are already quite happy with it (some few things are missing and marked). What is everyone’s feedback on the points, is anything that we missed? 
Principle 1: Open Source Design connects open source and design
We connect open source workflows with human-centered design. We value usability, empowerment, design for reuse, sustainability, collaboration and transparency.
Principle 2: Open Source Design is inclusive & empathic
We are inclusive to newcomers and act with humility. We are open to constructive criticism, discourse and feedback. We have a diverse representation of people in our projects and communities.
Principle 3: Open Source Design is for everyone
Our responsibility is to make products usable for a diverse audience. Our work is universally accessible. (We do not blame users / The design needs to / Any issue that people have with it are on us to improve.)
Principle 4: Open Source Design is part of a larger development process
Design is a continuous part of a larger development process. It is informed by research and testing. We leave our egos at the door.
Principle 5: Open Source Design is ethical
We design with respect and ethics in mind. [insert values] Our design processes and tools compliment these values.
Principle 6: Open Source Design is open & educational
We share knowledge and teach skills. Information is freely accessible in open standard compliant formats. We help designers get involved in open source, and open source developers make their products better by good design.
Principle 7: Open Source Design is collaborative and remixable
Design is a team effort and multiple perspectives provide a richer result. Every work builds upon prior information and intellectual work. We creatively copy and remix with attribution and gratitude.
3 Likes
Feedback from reading through these principles with a larger group:
Principle 2 is mostly about the community;
Principle 3 is mostly about the design itself.
Currently the headings for these principles don’t make this differentiation clear. Ideas?
Could we give this a bit more structure, possibly reduced to 3 points?
2: “Open Source Design has an inclusive and empathic community” ?
For
It seems to be based on universal design (which I like), however the headline could easily feed into “The target group of the products we design for is everyone!”. Thus I like “ODS [designs/creates…] products usable for a diverse audience” more
Hmm, I do not think that personal views are the actual problem – what about “we learn based on research and testing” or so?
I would not Manifesto-ize this, necessarily, since in practice, an non-open-format can be more accessible to more people, and thus I would prefer it.
I like 7 a lot!
Which values were discussed?
@jdittrich cool! Could you actually add those points to the Pad instead: https://pad.ura.design/p/OSD-Summit-Manifesto (sorry for not mentioning it again – we meanwhile also made some edits).
Since we don’t do so many changes anymore, we can move the text from the pad to here again. This is the latest version:
Open Source Design Manifesto
1. Open Source Design connects open source and design
We connect open source workflows with human-centered design. We value usability, empowerment, sustainability, collaboration and transparency.
2. Open Source Design is inclusive
We are inclusive to newcomers and act with humility. We are open to constructive criticism, discourse and feedback. We have a diverse representation of people in our projects and communities.
3. Open Source Design is collaborative and remixable
Design is a team effort and multiple perspectives provide a richer result. Every work builds upon prior information and intellectual work. We creatively copy and remix with attribution and gratitude.
4. Open Source Design is empathic
Our responsibility is to make products usable for a diverse audience. Our work is universally accessible.
5. Open Source Design is part of a process
Design is a continuous part of a larger development process. It is informed by research and testing, and starts at the very beginning of a product.
6. Open Source Design is ethical
We design with respect and ethics in mind. People’s privacy and time is honored. Our design processes and tools compliment these values.
7. Open Source Design is educational
We share knowledge and teach skills. We help designers get involved in open source, and help open source developers make their products better through good design.
Are we calling this last version v1? If there are any more suggestions for changes let’s discuss them here and do amendments. I think we should not do more amendments than 1x per year though.
1 Like
Minor change request:
What about: “We strive for making our work universally accessible”
From my understanding the manifesto is already something we strive for so I don’t think we should not give an impression that “we try to”.
Maybe “Our work should be universally accessible”?
Maybe “Our work should be universally accessible”?
Also fine. “is” would sound like a statement of fact.
Ahoi! What’s the status on our manifesto? Is there a newer version, or are we ready to publish this one on our website?
2 Likes
Hi there, haven’t looked into the manifesto for quite a while and could not find the version where I added a mention of “Free Software” to it. If this is the most recent iteration I have two questions:
-
It would be great to be more explicit about what “ethics” refers to. Is user freedom part of this?
-
In how far is “Open Source Design” about “Designing with Open Source”? I miss an explicit reference to encourage and support use of free software among designers. Supposing that is a goal of course.
2 Likes
@elioqoshi @jan @jdittrich and all other core members, I’d love to see this question clarified as in my eyes this is a pretty important question. Any update in that regard would be welcome.
1 Like