Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Dillon, A. (1994). Electronic Documents as Usable Artifacts. In Dillon
(Ed.) _Designing Usable Electronic Text_ (p. 11-27). Bristol, PA:
Taylor and Francis.
Review of the history and main theories and principles of HCI to
establish a background upon which electronic documents are to be
analyzed.
-=-=-
Raises the important point that usability is often misconstrued (even
by those within the field) as ease of use for some generic user as
oppossed to specific types of users in specific contexts with certain
expectations of effectiveness.
This usability for _certain_ users in _certain_ contexts notion is
relevant for my discussion of the acceptance of faceted
classification, found elsewhere in this journal.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Berners-Lee, T., & Fischetti, M. (1999). Chapter 13: Machines and the
Web. In _Weaving the Web: the original design and ultimate
destiny of the World Wide Web by its inventor_. San Francisco:
HaperSanFrancisco.
Discussion of the Semantic Web, a network of information sharing
between machines based on the presence of metadata represented in RDF.
The network is called semantic because an inference layer will allow
entities on the network to reach a consensual understanding. Such
understanding is supposed to enhance the generation of knowledge.
-=-=-
There are so many ways to criticize this chapter (Berners-Lee has a
bad case of second system syndrome; he's up on a soapbox which is
distorting his view somewhat; he equates, to some extant, traversal of
a thesaurus as meaning acquistion; essentially he suggest that
computers can categorize, I don't think so: they classify) but who
wants to. This is such a nice pretty vision of the future I'm inclined
to support it despite the flaws.
One area where this discussion makes a big win is in its understanding
of the power of brute force methods in granting computers some
semblance of intelligence. This was recently (200111) discussed on the
unrev-ii@yahoogroups.com mailing list: IBM has released some systems
that do self diagnosis and healing using techniques utilized for the
deep blue chess system. IBM discovered that to make deep blue smart
their best approach was to provide the computer with as much info as
possible from whlch it could do pattern matching. They call this the
brute force approach. Unrevvers liken this to the approach used with
cyc.
The semantic web is the same: using the entire web as the brute
information force.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Berners-Lee, T., & Fischetti, M. (1999). Chapter 14: Weaving the
Web. In _Weaving the Web: the original design and ultimate
destiny of the World Wide Web by its inventor_. San Francisco:
HaperSanFrancisco.
Summation of BL's hope for the web as a way of improving community and
enhancing the beneficial aspects of the fractal nature of society by
allowing links alongside diversity.
-=-=-
Tim needs to cite of his sources. And it really seems like he should
give a bit of a tip of the hat to Engelbart.
This is a compelling vision. BL speaks of the web as a giant knowledge
management system. Discovery of knowledge in multi-dimensional space:
seeing unexpected links.
I'm curious to see visualizations of various dimensions of the web and
discover the holes in the maps. What is there? What should be there?
But see also my chapter 13 comments.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Milstead, J., & Feldman, S. (1999). Metadata: cataloging by any other
name .... Metadata projects and standars. _Online_ (January 1999).
Retrieved November 3, 2001 from
http://www.onlineinc.com/onlinemag/OL1999/milstead1.html.
Ties in Internet conceptions of metadata with the tasks of librarians
and indexers. Delineates the goals and shortcomings of metadata
schemes. Describes some of the metadata projects (e.g. Dublin Core).
"Metadata acts as a surrogate for a larger whole."
-=-=-
Compare and contrast metadata (RDF) as described by Berners-Lee with
the strict notions of consistency in metadata in this article.
Google's awesome dominance of the search engine field and their
decision to ignore metadata should be instructive. It seem that the
value of metadata in direct human situations is of limited value (see
my faceted classification discussion under Dillon and Morris).
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Decker, S., Melnik, S., van Harmelen, F., Fensel, D., Klein, M.,
Broekstra, J., Erdmann, M., & Horrocks, I. (2000). The semantic
web: the roles of XML and RDF. _IEEE Internet Computing, 4_(5),
63-74. Retrieved November 3, 2001 from
http://computer.org/internet/ic2000/w5063abs.htm.
A discussion of the relative merits of xml & rdf for the
representation of ontologies. Having well represented ontologies will
be an important sted toward semantic interoperability on the Semantic
Web. The authors conclude with a preference for RDF because it has
declarative semantics: semantics that can be understood without
reference to a particular computational procedure.
-=-=-
It's brief, but the authors mention that ontologies can be compared
and overlayed to effectively concatenate two or more domains of
knowledge. This is fascinating and very powerful. If well implemented
this will allow machines on the semantic web to effectively classify
discovered information.
This won't, however, make them smart. The machines will still need
definitions and enumerable classes.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Amann, B., Fundulaki, I., & Scholl, M. (2000). Integrating ontologies
and thesauri for RDF schema creation and metadata querying.
_International Journal of Digital Libraries, 3_(3). Retrieved
November 3, 2001 from
http://cedric.cnam.fr/AfficheArticle.php?id=14.
Presentation of an approach for building metadata schema. Ontologies
and thesauri are shown to be two different methods for describing
information. Combining the two, by specifying connections between the
ontological relationships and terms in thesaurus, can create rich
metadata for use with RDF.
-=-=-
This one was fairly difficult to follow but one thing was clear: this
system provides for the provision of more information about a
resource. That is the brute force method.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
From L542: These are term paper thoughts, in need of supporting evidence.
Wroblewski, D. (1991). The construction of human-computer interfaces
considered as craft. In Karat (ed.) Taking Software Design Seriously,
NY: Academic Press, p. 1-19.
Wroblewski defines craft as "any process that attempts to create a
functional artifact without separating design from manufacture" and
then applies this definition to software design and interface design
(as a subset). A crucial aspect of craft is the way in which the
products of the craft are used in the creation of additional products.
This happens frequently in software creation.
Another crucial aspect is the way in which the craftsperson is
trusting of the crafting process and is situated in and responsive to
a context instead of removed and analytical.
Context and understanding of context is gained through the learning of
language. Craftspeople are defined to as excellent in the way in which
they able to be articulate with their context and apply their language
to complicated, difficult to decompose, problems.
-=-=-
I argue that computer use in general is a craft for some people. In
addition casting computer use in this way creates an opportunity for
making use more effective.
Craftspeople articulate with their tools, performing in an elegant
fashion. They use their tools as extensions of themselves.
Some views of computer use (Suchman) cast the computer as an
interactive device with the appearance, because it is complicated, of
intention. This makes the computer into other not a tool. Not an
extension but a separation.
The computer is a tool. If intention is determined by the effort
required to decode meaning in communication we must remember that the
decoding process is different for computers. As much as appearance
suggests the contrary, there is explicit definition in a computer:
meaning in communication can be determined by deduction. With enough
time the onion can be unravelled, if necessary to the machine level.
In humans, on the other hand, meaning is far more difficult to
determine. Studies of category generation indicate that neither the
intension nor extension of a category can be fully delineated.
[things start to fall apart about here]
Computers are interesting because they are tools for representing
information while the computer itself is using information to do work.
Able computer users have a deep understanding of the grammar of the
computer and incorporate that knowledge into their own personal
conceptual space.
That knowledge is shared into communities of practice, like guilds
for craftspeople. The CoPs provide for the sharing of paradigmatic
examples. This increases the extension of the conceptual space of the
craftsperson.
Long but contingent extension allows for maximum flexibility when
approaching problems.
Uninitiated computer users communicate with the computer. That is they
negotiate with the computer to convince it to do what they want. (this
sounds supportable, what is it?) Craftspeople do not negotiate with
their tools, they use them to negotiate with the problem.
Able computer users communicate with the computer. That is they create
communication with the device: they create and manipulate information.
(There's an interesting and dreary generalization of this model: full
formed, extensive knowledge of a conceptual space allows one to use
something or _someone_.)
If the computer as tool is a good model for effective use then there
are several implications for application and systems design. Many of
these recomendations seem contrary to perceived wisdom in the HCI
community. I do not believe this to be the case. An apparent failing
in HCI research is an overemphasis on the succecsful completion of a
particular task in a particular context in a short period of time.
Interfaces to computers pervade our lives, being able to use them as
tools will enhance effectiveness in many areas.
Perhaps there has been too great an emphasis on the specific tasks
that computers do. We should generalize to the overarching task of
manipulating information--or as I prefer to call it: creating
alternate representations--and see the computer as a tool for
facillitating that process.
[the recomendations]
- expose the task
- situate the task in the larger (info manip) task
- share definition
- if metaphors, should make sense in larger task
- training by apprenticeship and paradigmatic examples which generate
conceptual knowledge/membership in CoPs.
- identify "elegant" solutions and determine why they are
- simplify tools. Look at tools with long lifespans and determine why
they are good.
- distill tools (long been ethos of right tool for right job in unix
(may be able to fit lego model of unix in here)) to simple form
- separate interface from action: allows for situating
[more, more clearly explained]
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Walt Woolfolk wrote:
> Here are some reactions to your sketch from Wroblewski. I think you
> have good ideas that are worth developing.
Thanks very much for the comments, very good to get.
Some responses: (>> == me, > == you)
>>Craftspeople articulate with their tools, performing in an elegant
>>fashion. They use their tools as extensions of themselves.
>Would it be useful to distinguish between craft and art? It’s often
>glossed in much of the non-academic writing at least
That's covered in the Wroblewski article. He distinguishes between
design, craft and art. I'll probably cover that. It's clear that I'm
going to need to start the paper with what amounts to a glossary
because I'm using terms that aren't necessarily equal across the
disciplines I'm bridging.
>>In humans, on the other hand, meaning is far more difficult to
>>determine. Studies of category generation indicate that neither the
>>intension nor extension of a category can be fully delineated.
>Agree - but to split a hair, do you really mean to imply intention is
>quantitative, based on how much effort is required?
intension and extension are terms used when speaking of categories and
classes. That's part of the defining terms.
The intension of class is basically the definition or rules of the
class, for example, "things that are red". The extension of a class
are the things in the domain which fit withing that rule. Say we have
a domain made up of three red objects and two blue objects. The red
objects are the extension of the class, in that domain.
Categories are pretty much opened ended, in both intension and
extension. They adapt to the domain. Adaptation appears to be a key to
the whole discussion.
Another definition of intension and extension is connotation and
dennotation. Or (from http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/):
sense, intension, connotation -- (what you must know in order to
determine the reference of an expression)
reference, denotation, extension -- (the class of objects that an
expression refers to; "the extension of `satellite of Mars' is the set
containing only Demos and Phobos")
I like to think of intension as the skin of a balloon holding in the
extension. That gets the "in" and "ex" parts for me.
Like so many of these things it appears that people are using
definition as they like. It's rather problematic...
With that, then, this takes on a different aspect:
>>Long but contingent extension allows for maximum flexibility when
>>approaching problems.
>This is very interesting. As you know I think flexibility, rather
>than functional accuracy of representation, needs to become in many
>cases the primary [design] objective. With sufficient flexibility, a
>system can then be easily tuned for functional accuracy - and
>re-tuned as needed as the functional requirements change over time.
Basically what I'm saying is that since craftwork is based on flexible
categories it has built in flexibility/adaptability.
>So, what exactly do you have in mind by long contingent extension?
>For example, do you mean a perpetual involvement of the information
>systems professional in the adjusting of the system to changing
>requirements?
No. I'm more at the individual user level of things. If the user has a
more situated and contextualized understanding of information
processing they can adapt to new problems readily. Or from another
perspective: if their language in the particular general problem
domain is fairly complex they can understand more things.
>If so, this is what we have now - basically crappy
>systems that need huge amounts of maintenance. Like, is your
>statement merely a truism - the equivalent of the most flexible
>system is one that comes with a programmer attached? Or is there
>something else here? Many people have complained over the years about
>the loose cannon that is the skilled but undisciplined programmer,
>who does things because they can be done but does the wrong things -
>at least from the complainer’s viewpoint. It is in this sense that
>the word “craft” raises a red flag in me.
I suspect that to a certain extent what underlies my thinking is a
bias that people who are able to manipulate the computer as a tool are
more likely to have success with it. From that bias I'm developing the
entire thing. What I want to end up with are some guidelines that
encourage that perception (computer as tool) so that people think in
terms of using the tool to get some task done.
I was explaining it a coupel of days ago like this:
Frequently HCI literature puts the primary membrane (| below) between
a user and their task as the interface of the computer:
|
|
Person<====>|interface<====>task
|
|
On one side of the membrane is you. On the other side is the task. The
task is other. Suchman (see
http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/fiaarts/docs/1000095737:9878.html
for a reference and some comments long before I thought of writing
this paper) suggests the computer as an interactive device with
intention. You operate across the membrane trying to figure out what
the hell is going on.
In models of craftwork the membrane is moved:
|
|
Person<====>tool|<====>task
|
|
You don't necessarily become one with the task (although many times
craftspeople are perceived that way) but the tools used to do the task
become extensions (different use of extension) of the self.
So part of what I would like to say is:
- people use tools to perform better
- a craft is identified by a lack of distinction between tools and
materials (e.g. a blacksmith makes tools to make his/her product)
and design and manufacture
- craftspeople have certain methods of learning and achieving
excellence which according to Wroblewski are based very much on
reflected-action, being situated in a known context, adaptability
- those methods sound almost identical to category mapping
- categories exist for adaptability
- combining this awareness of craft and category what are the
recommendations that can be made to encourage the computer as tool
instead interactive device (how can the membrane be moved)?
It's getting to that last part that is hard for me, because it is
obvious to me. I may be trying to bite off too much. The category
aspect of things is not completely necessary but in my head it puts
flesh on the bones and makes my understanding of things much more
clear.
I have so many different places where I have written stuff down about
this that I could create about 20 different outlines. I need to get a
real one down.
>As you said in another context, “give me principles supported and
>illustrated by many short examples” [more or less what you said?] -
>your thoughts and, hence, the term paper, provide several very
>interesting statements pregnant with principle which need to be
>supported by examples, not only to provide evidence but also to aid
>the understanding of the reader.
This is the hard part. Bringing it down to earth is a toughy.
I'm going to try and gather all the pieces I have and see what that
gets me.
-=-=-
You're entire text included for reference:
>Very interesting topic and seems like the Wroblewski is a good choice
>for starting place. Except for this, my comments come after your
>stuff.
From L542: These are term paper thoughts, in need of supporting
evidence.
Wroblewski, D. (1991). The construction of human-computer interfaces
considered as craft. In Karat (ed.) Taking Software Design
Seriously,
NY: Academic Press, p. 1-19.
Wroblewski defines craft as "any process that attempts to create a
functional artifact without separating design from manufacture" and
then applies this definition to software design and interface design
(as a subset). A crucial aspect of craft is the way in which the
products of the craft are used in the creation of additional products.
This happens frequently in software creation.
Another crucial aspect is the way in which the craftsperson is
trusting of the crafting process and is situated in and responsive to
a context instead of removed and analytical.
Context and understanding of context is gained through the learning of
language. Craftspeople are defined to as excellent in the way in which
they able to be articulate with their context and apply their language
to complicated, difficult to decompose, problems.
-=-=-
I argue that computer use in general is a craft for some people. In
addition casting computer use in this way creates an opportunity for
making use more effective.
Craftspeople articulate with their tools, performing in an elegant
fashion. They use their tools as extensions of themselves.
>Would it be useful to distinguish between craft and art? It’s often
>glossed in much of the non-academic writing at least
Some views of computer use (Suchman) cast the computer as an
interactive device with the appearance, because it is complicated, of
intention. This makes the computer into other not a tool. Not an
extension but a separation.
The computer is a tool. If intention is determined by the effort
required to decode meaning in communication we must remember that the
decoding process is different for computers. As much as appearance
suggests the contrary, there is explicit definition in a computer:
meaning in communication can be determined by deduction. With enough
time the onion can be unravelled, if necessary to the machine level.
In humans, on the other hand, meaning is far more difficult to
determine. Studies of category generation indicate that neither the
intension nor extension of a category can be fully delineated.
>Agree - but to split a hair, do you really mean to imply intention is
>quantitative, based on how much effort is required?
[things start to fall apart about here]
Computers are interesting because they are tools for representing
information while the computer itself is using information to do work.
Able computer users have a deep understanding of the grammar of the
computer and incorporate that knowledge into their own personal
conceptual space.
That knowledge is shared into communities of practice, like guilds
for craftspeople. The CoPs provide for the sharing of paradigmatic
examples. This increases the extension of the conceptual space of the
craftsperson.
Long but contingent extension allows for maximum flexibility when
approaching problems.
>This is very interesting. As you know I think flexibility, rather than
>functional accuracy of representation, needs to become in many cases
>the primary [design] objective. With sufficient flexibility, a system
>can then be easily tuned for functional accuracy - and re-tuned as
>needed as the functional requirements change over time. So, what
>exactly do you have in mind by long contingent extension? For example,
>do you mean a perpetual involvement of the information systems
>professional in the adjusting of the system to changing requirements?
>If so, this is what we have now - basically crappy systems that need
>huge amounts of maintenance. Like, is your statement merely a truism -
>the equivalent of the most flexible system is one that comes with a
>programmer attached? Or is there something else here? Many people have
>complained over the years about the loose cannon that is the skilled
>but undisciplined programmer, who does things because they can be done
>but does the wrong things - at least from the complainer’s viewpoint.
>It is in this sense that the word “craft” raises a red flag in me.
Uninitiated computer users communicate with the computer. That is they
negotiate with the computer to convince it to do what they want. (this
sounds supportable, what is it?) Craftspeople do not negotiate with
their tools, they use them to negotiate with the problem.
>Good - maybe clearer to say “Uninitiated computer users negotiate
>with the computer to convince it to do what they want” - leaving
>“communicate” for the larger category of computer use that includes
>that by initiated/able users
Able computer users communicate with the computer. That is they create
communication with the device: they create and manipulate information.
(There's an interesting and dreary generalization of this model: full
formed, extensive knowledge of a conceptual space allows one to use
something or _someone_.)
>ugh
If the computer as tool is a good model for effective use then there
are several implications for application and systems design. Many of
these recomendations seem contrary to perceived wisdom in the HCI
community. I do not believe this to be the case. An apparent failing
in HCI research is an overemphasis on the succecsful completion of a
particular task in a particular context in a short period of time.
Interfaces to computers pervade our lives, being able to use them as
tools will enhance effectiveness in many areas.
>Seems one clear section of the paper would be establishing the
>computer as tool model - as part of the larger argument that
>__________?
Perhaps there has been too great an emphasis on the specific tasks
that computers do. We should generalize to the overarching task of
manipulating information--or as I prefer to call it: creating
alternate representations--and see the computer as a tool for
facillitating that process.
>This might do for the larger argument/model
[the recomendations]
- expose the task
- situate the task in the larger (info manip) task
- share definition
- if metaphors, should make sense in larger task
- training by apprenticeship and paradigmatic examples which generate
conceptual knowledge/membership in CoPs.
- identify "elegant" solutions and determine why they are
- simplify tools. Look at tools with long lifespans and determine why
they are good.
- distill tools (long been ethos of right tool for right job in unix
(may be able to fit lego model of unix in here)) to simple form
- separate interface from action: allows for situating
[more, more clearly explained]
>Very good - needs to be clearly shown to follow from the model of
>computer as tool or more clearly shown to the larger objective
>
>As you said in another context, “give me principles supported and
>illustrated by many short examples” [more or less what you said?] -
>your thoughts and, hence, the term paper, provide several very
>interesting statements pregnant with principle which need to be
>supported by examples, not only to provide evidence but also to aid
>the understanding of the reader.
>
>I think this has real potential for an excellent paper - and, more
>importantly, for continued good thinking and discovery
Back to the Index