This is a meta comment. (1) You have to explain Web 2.0 to people, not just assume that they know what it is.
(2) Your introductory material is too verbose.
(3) I suggest a VERY SIMPLE naive-user interface much as Apple had with a "miniFinder" versus "Finder" ... I'm showing my age ... or with later versions of the Mac OS, the ability to choose a simpler or more complex desktop.
The Web miniFinder would still end up taking people to the brainstorming area, but it would go through "baby steps" to get there.
(4) You need to create a place to accommodate people who want to crtique an interface or suggest improvements. And when they do, and they are angry and frustrated, the people handling that feedback need to be able to accept the anger and frustration as a real phenomenon, and accept that the interface is probably responsible.
(5) "Transparency" means more than the data. If the interface is not superlative, there's little point. Data.gov appears to be a step in the right direction. By contrast, the Maryland "statestat" Web site is marginal, and its mechanism for tracking stimulus dollars can only be characterized by the Computer Science Major term of art, "it sucks."
Comments (2)
And now, looking at the published comment, I don't see the end of it.
The interface gives no hint that there's more than what appears in the first 20-some lines.
You need the standard [more] link at the end of any truncated post in this forum.
Yes, interface issues are important, and this very site is rather poorly implemented. Poor organization and navigation (it's hard to find what you're looking for), poor user controls (for example, how do you turn off email notifications for a topic?)... there isn't even a Help link.