At 11:58 AM 9/13/01 +0200, you wrote:
Alex, Eric, here are some thoughts,
- The solution to this problem, is to only show a subset of the graph at a
- time. So far, the only tool to do so is theBrain, and it only shows a very
- small window into the data. There are much better ways. Have you checked
- out this paper by the
- way? http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/postscript/VSW01.pdf What to you think?
- The problem with displaying sub-graphs is that they are not disconnected from the rest of the graph. These ralationships between sub-graphs should be visible. In my concept mapping applet I attempted to display sub-graphs in the same display area so that interconnections can be made and shown. It works but it creates a usablity problem because of all these sub-graphs open within the same area. There must be something that can be done visually to solve this but I haven't had the time to address it correctly.
- >I think that is close to a good definition of the target. But it needs
- >to carry
- >connotations of "conversation" and "document aggregation", as well. My
- >"HowTo" folders contain dozens of messages with little factoids I've
- >on various subjects. That knowledge base needs to be sharable and
- Sharable is easy, you just publish it (zip it, post it, whatever, it's a
- joke anyway). Searchable is harder. My view of searching is that a lot of
- work has been done on searching after-the fact. You write something, and
- then you use a machine to go back and find what you (or someone else) has
- I don't think sharable is easy. Sending something is easy but that's not sharing. Sharing means you need to address issues of multiple personal views, comments, awareness,same time editing. It's a whole research program. Sending documents (or graphs or whatever) back and forth for changes and comments does not work well in practice.
- However, a non-linear document would allow for searching to be build in to
- the document. The author can anticipate what the readers will search for,
- and provide the links right there. Also, readers can add links if they
- think two pieces of information are relevant.
- The author can only anticipate some stuff but the actual value will come from what the readers find in the document which the author could anticipate nor perceive. This will usually be a result of links made to other documents which the readers know and the author doesn't.
- Eric, I think that we are talking about representing two different types of
- information. You seem to be talking about time-dependent information, and
- also description of processes. In my mind this is a hard problem.
- To me, something easier, is to build tools for discussing timeless
- information like scientific truth, or philosophical arguments. Maybe
- forming a plan of what should be done for a particular project can also
- fall into this category. But my vision of this, was that the plan would be
- formed, and then followed, not altered in the process. Maybe altering the
- plan would be a whole other process with stable versions in the
- middle. Still, I think it would be hard to come up with something that
- gives you 10 tasks today, and 8 tomorrow.
- I'm not sure what truth is so let's not get into this.
- However, timeless information is hard to find. "scientific truth" is continually changing as our instruments to probe the world keep changing. I don't know of plans that are not changed by the process of implementing them. So any tool we build must take the notion of change extremely seriously.
|Yahoo! Groups Sponsor|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Sep 13 2001 - 07:04:07 PDT