Author: Registered Shareware
Company: ©2001

PIW User Experience 

PIW Goals (and what distinguishes it from other plant databases)
•	Help users learn about guild elements (at this point, limited to plants) in ecological context, in terms of relationships 
•	Help users design locally-adapted guilds
•	Build a database of successful guilds (vs. individual plants) for advancement of Permaculture and polyculture design
•	Allow users to contribute and exchange information regarding guild design and plant relationships, and make this information accessible
•	Model of interactive education and information visualization

Plant functions 
This is a preliminary and dynamic list, please feel free to edit.  As I see it, there are multiple overlapping categories for functions.  (According to Bear, this isrelated to the schema.  We could use the below to inform the schema design @ http://www.permaculture.info/wiki/index.php?n=Main.XML.)

Ecological
•	Nitrogren fixers (i.e. Siberian Pea Shrub)
•	Accumulators (i.e. Buckwheat)
•	Insectary plants (i.e. Carrot)
•	Native/Habitat species – this must be better defined (should we include naturalized species that provide habitat, or let users add naturalized species if they choose to?)

Human Uses
•	Edible – can be split into further categories, and there are numerous possibilities for this
o	Culinary
•	Fruits 
•	Nuts
•	Roots and tubers
•	Vegetables (we are going to have to better define this)
•	Legumes
•	Seeds (which would include legumes, grains, and nuts?)
•	Grains 
•	Culinary herbs (i.e. Oregano)
o	Biological
•	Cultivated for root (i.e. Carrot)
•	Cultivated for stem (i.e. Celery)
•	Cultivated for leaves (i.e. Spinach)
•	Cultivated for flower (i.e. Artichoke)
•	Cultivated for fruit (i.e. Tomato)
•	Cultivated for seed (i.e. Fava Beans, would include nuts, grains, and seeds)
o	Dietary
•	Protein
•	Starch/Sugar
•	Green Vegetable
•	Fat
•	Fruit
•	Medicinal – can be split into further categories relating to health, we would need to discuss this
•	Popularly fragrant plants (i.e. Jasmine)
•	Popularly used aesthetically (i.e. Brugmansia) 
•	Plants used for craft-making (i.e. Bamboo)
•	Cultivated for:
•	Root (i.e. Carrot)
•	Stem (i.e. Celery)
•	Leaves (i.e. Spinach)
•	Flower (i.e. Artichoke)
•	Fruit (i.e. Tomato)
•	Seed (i.e. Fava Beans)

Size/Height above/below soil level (in numerical units)

Habit 
•	Deep roots/tap roots (i.e. Daikon)
•	Shallow root
•	Ground covers (i.e. Ajuga)
•	Low-growing
•	Taller-growing
•	Shrubs (i.e. mock orange)
•	Climbing Vines (i.e. Schizandra)
•	Small trees
•	Overstory

Graphical Elements
•	Node – a node in the web, representing an ecological function (i.e. nitrogen fixation) or a plant/element of a ecological community (i.e. Carrots).  Users may click on a node to learn information about that function or plant/element.
•	Strand – a line connecting two nodes, representing the relationship between them (i.e. relationship between Carrots and Lettuce).  Users may click on a strand to learn information about the relationship between nodes.

Bear adds, “Based on the model I was conceptualizing, the division between function and the plant itself would be well defined.  Using the state-machine as an example, functions would be the plus signs, and plants would be the circles.  Functions act as attractors.  This applies to the search mode.  When displaying a guild, I’m not sure if functions would show as nodes.  In the guild “wizard”/assistant, an node would have a function(s) assigned to it, that when clicked would bring you into the search mode.”

Possible reasons for why user is visiting PIW (vs. another plant database)
1.	To learn about the ecological functions of or relationship(s) between 2 or more plants
2.	To learn which natives may be substituted by edibles, medicinals, or otherwise useful plants
3.	To design a locally-adapted guild
4.	To ‘input’ plants already growing in garden, learn which ecological functions may still be satisfied, and which plants may satisfy those functions
5.	To ‘input’ desired plants, learn which ecological functions may still be satisfied, and which plants may satisfy those functions
6.	To ‘input’ information about site, learn which functions would suit particular microclimates (we haven’t discussed this, but it’s a possibility)

7.	To learn about successful guilds in specific bioregion/USDA zone
8.	To contribute information about an ecological relationship/guild 
9.	To ask questions about a particular ecological relationship/guild

Scenarios
Reason #1 Scenario
To learn about the ecological functions of or relationship(s) between 2 or more plants 
•	Initial interface similar to that of the Visual Thesaurus (http://www.visualthesaurus.com/).
•	However, the screen is not blank, it contains a grayed out image of a guild diagram.  Instead of being specific plants (i.e. Siberian pea shrub), the nodes are ecological functions (i.e. nitrogen fixation).
•	User types names of plants into text box – for example fava beans, dill, and tomato.  (This would be a search function, to match to an entry in the DB.)
•	Nodes representing functions are replaced by these plant names, and are colored instead of being grayed out.  Remaining functions stay grayed out.  In this case, fava beans replace a nitrogen fixation node, but the accumulator function node remains grayed out.
•	This view shows the user what functions the entered plants satisfy in their own native habitats, providing ecological context.
•	Users may click on a plant node, and learn information about that particular plant (like a traditional database).
•	If specific information has been entered about the relationship between any of these plants, a colored strand will connect them.  For instance, if information regarding the compatibility of fava beans and dill has been entered, a connecting strand will appear.  (Perhaps the color of the strand can be meaningful – indicating positive/negative relationship, how much information has been entered, or otherwise.)
•	User may click on the strand, and information about relationship will come up in a separate window (text, images, or whatever information has been entered by other users regarding this relationship).
•	Whether or not there are strands, the user will learn about each plant in its ecological context.

Reason #2 Scenario
To learn which natives may be substituted by edibles, medicinals, or otherwise useful plants
•	Initial interface similar to that of the Visual Thesaurus (http://www.visualthesaurus.com/).
•	However, the screen is not blank, it contains a grayed out image of a guild diagram.  Instead of being specific plants (i.e. Siberian pea shrub), the nodes are ecological functions (i.e. nitrogen fixation).
•	User enters Lat/Long, function nodes are replaces with native plants – essentially displaying the native plant community as a guild diagram.  
•	User can select a particular native plant and enter a preference (i.e. popularly fragrant).
•	PIW will list plants which satisfy selected preference and can grow in specified bioregion.
•	User can basically substitute native plants with others that satisfy same ecological functions, filling out the native guild diagram with plants which suits his/her particular preferences.
•	Once again, user may click on nodes and strands to learn more information. 

Reason #3 Scenario
To design a locally-adapted guild (essentially the same as reason #2, but requires less information about plant communities on PIW’s part)
•	Initial interface similar to that of the Visual Thesaurus (http://www.visualthesaurus.com/) plus an advanced search engine.
•	User enters Lat/Long (or some international standard) and a set of preferences (i.e. edibles, insectaries, and craft-making plants), and clicks the ‘search’ button.  This would also require a database with geospatial capabilities.
•	PIW returns a list of possible ‘core’ elements for guild.
•	User selects one element, and it is displayed as a single node on the screen.  User double clicks on node, and it becomes orbited by elements that could be planted around it and also satisfy above criteria (analogous to Visual Thesaurus interface).
•	User selects desired elements, and others fade away.  
•	User repeats the same process, double clicking on new nodes…ultimately creating a guild.
•	Once again, user may click on nodes and strands to learn more information.

Reason #4 Scenario
To ‘input’ plants already growing in garden, learn which ecological functions may still be satisfied, and which plants may satisfy those functions
•	Scenario is same as #1, user sees remaining grayed out nodes to find out what ecological functions may still be satisfied.
•	Rest of scenario is same as #2, user substitutes functions with preferred plants
•	User works with what’s already growing in garden to ‘flesh out’ a guild.
•	Once again, user may click on nodes and strands to learn more information.

Reason #5 Scenario
To ‘input’ desired plants, learn which ecological functions may still be satisfied, and which plants may satisfy those functions
•	Same as scenario #4, user enters plants he/she knows he/she wants in garden (i.e. user is sure he/she wants a fig tree, mint, cilantro, and spinach and wants to create a guild using these elements).

Reason #6 Scenario
To ‘input’ information about site, learn which functions would suit particular microclimates
•	Interface similar to that of an advanced search engine
•	User enters properties of site (Lat/Long, aspect, slope, hours of sunlight per day, etc.) and perhaps preferences as well (i.e. popularly fragrant plant).  User clicks ‘search’ button.
•	PIW returns list of plants that satisfy above criteria.
•	Ideally, user could actually make a diagram of the landscape in mind and engage in somewhat of a SimLife (in this case, SimGarden) activity? 

Reason #7 Scenario
To learn about successful guilds in specific bioregion/USDA zone
•	User enters Lat/Long, and clicks the ‘search’ button.
•	PIW returns list of locally successful guilds.
•	User can choose one, view it in web diagram form, and view associated information.
•	User can then substitute elements ala Scenario #2.

Reason #8 Scenario
To contribute information about an ecological relationship/guild
•	Ideally, this would be a web-making authoring tool – where a user may drag nodes onto a screen, attach them with strands, and enter information (text, images) into the strands.  In this way, when another user came across a strand, the information entered would be accessible
•	If this is too complicated for now, we could do something simpler – where a user simply types 2 or more plants into text boxes, and enters textual information or attaches files.

Reason #9 Scenario
To ask questions about a particular ecological relationship/guild
•	Will the PIW website offer discussion forums, or will this be satisfied by the listserv?

Additional Comments/Questions
•	Reason #6 may be included as ‘preferences’ in all other scenarios.  Accordingly, when users choose a preference (i.e. popularly fragrant plant), they might also have the option of entering microclimate information.
•	Other aspects/potential preferences:
o	How to incorporate the aspect of time?  Season affects what can be planted, trees will take a long time to bear fruit, plants don’t grow at the same rate, etc.  Will time (season, length) be a preference users can specify and tweak?
o	Can soil texture/structure be a feature users enter?  
•	If there is a strand between fava beans and dill, and another between fava beans, dill, and tomatoes, the former will be in one color and the latter in another (to allow for different strands between 2 nodes, and between those same 2 and a third).
•	Will there be a printer-friendly version of the diagrams created?
•	Can PIW make suggestions, or will this be purely user driven?
•	Like other search engines, if there are too many ‘hits,’ PIW can ask for more preferences.
•	How/when to include elements other than plants (i.e. animals)?  Or will the schema be flexible enough to allow for this?  
•	Out of curiosity, does anyone know of any software programs for integrated systems design – where all inputs and outputs (resources and wastes) are included?