The Pattern Language Network

Taming web2.0 in Higher Education

Finalising a pattern structure

Posted by Janet Finlay on November 3, 2008

We have had many discussions about the structure we need for a pattern and the template on the wiki has been updated to reflect some of these. However I don’t think we have agreed a structure that we can work with from now on. My own view is that the current structure is incomplete and does not give enough support to people moving from protopatterns to patterns. It would also be useful to use a structure which is compatible with other collections to allow more seamless reuse of the patterns of others.

I proposed some changes some time ago based on the PLML pattern elements – the resulting discussion was then summarised by Jim. I’d like to take that further now and propose an actual specification for the structure. I believe our template should include the following elements (comments in parentheses):

  • Name (short, memorable but not so gimicky as to be meaningless to anyone outside the initial discussion)
  • Illustration (a picture showing an instantiation of the pattern in real life – so a photo, screenshot, video – rather than a diagrammatic representation)
  • Problem (the design challenge the pattern will address)
  • Context (described by PLML as “applicability” – what kind of situation does this pattern apply to?)
  • Solution (the instruction that resolves or addresses the challenge expressed in the problem)
  • Diagram (a schematic or diagramatic representation that captures the essence of what the pattern is about – could be a sketch or a more formal representation)
  • Evidence – to include 3 sections (either formally or indicated in the section “advice”):
  1. Examples (cases where this pattern is seen)
  2. Rationale (principles, evidence from literature etc to back up pattern
  3. Links and references (supporting the above)
  • Related patterns (patterns within the language – or another) that this one extends, is part of, contains, is the same as etc)
  • Confidence (how sure are we this is a pattern – may be related to the level of evidence, the rule of three etc. – suggest a three level “star” rating).
  • Author
  • Licensing (as now)

I think this is in keeping with our previous discussions but that of course is open to disagreement! Some of these may end up being collapsed into one field; others may be optional. However, given the difficulties users have had in knowing how to move from case to pattern, overspecifying the structure seems appropriate to begin with.

Our plan is to use this format for the ALiC workshop this week and work on scaffolding questions and activities to help our participants map their cases onto it. We’ll keep you posted.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: