Damn good post, Eric.
From: Eric Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> * "Hierarchical structures provide no means of visually
> displaying a sense of convergence."
> --Here, we will someday part company, if I can *ever*
> figure out how "reduction" should occur. What I have
> so far is that a simultaneous reply needs to *supercede*
> the nodes it replies to, in some significant way.
> --The issue, of course, is that not all such replies
> are summaries! So that kind of reduction is not always
> the right tack to take for a multi-node response.
> --By the same token, it should be easy for someone
> else to provide a competing summary. And there needs
> to be a mechanism for "adopting" a summary -- i.e.
> selecting, in the same way that an alternative is
> selected from an IBIS discussion (another mechanism
> yet TBD).
The reference to IBIS is particularly useful. I suspect that the notion of
issue-based discussions is one of the more important insights here.
> --If, however, these issues (essentially interface issues)
> can be resolved, then a hierarchy can conceivably
> introduce a very *nice* mechanism for convergence, by
> *inverting* the hierarchy when the occasion demands it.
Of course, the notion of *inverting* a hierarchy will need much more
elaboration, complete, IMHO, with examples.
> * Although he usually calls them "CC" environments, at one
> point he describes them as "asynchronous conferincing
> environments". Talk about an acronym! ACE has legs. It
> could go places. Plus spinoffs: TRACE, PACE, GRACE -- you
> name it.
Interesting observation, that.
> * I suspect we should be basing our initial efforts around
> the analysis presented in this paper -- if not its
> proposed solution. If email is just a way to put information
> in the system, let's dispense with the concept of capuring
> email messages and go here, instead.
Isn't this somewhat akin to turning the Titanic?
> * "How a next-generation computer confercing system be
> designed? One appoach is to reconceptualize CC from a
> knowledge-centered, rather than conversation-based
> --I know Jack liked that. I find it scary, but interesting.
> Unfortunately, I wasn't able to intuit from the rest of
> the paper exactly what that meant in practice.
> * He also mentions "an APA-style reference list". What's that?
American Pediatrics Association? <gg>
> * Each note includes a list of "Notes that refer to this note"
> --ie. backlinks. Doug will like that.
Open question: are these links put in by the author while creating the post?
or are they added later, which implies the next question: do we add stuff to
a post after receipt, or do we do all referencing *above* the post space
(ala Topic Maps)?
> * I think the author has the view that showing the nodes
> graphically will indicate where convergence has occurred,
> and that somehow that will suffice for confergence to
> --I'm not sure that's true, but there may be more
> utility to graphical node-representations than I think.
> --I tend to distrust that they will do the job as
> intended, without becoming overly. I'm still inclined
> to pursue the concept of "superceding" nodes in the
> --Doug gave me an example of a sitution where graphic
> networks *do* make sense -- it was an app for Bell
> Atlantic that helps people identify their clusters
> and collect them into sub-networks, or something like
> --It occurred to me then that graphic soluions
> work when there are only a few elements in the system.
> (Let's say 5-7, using that famous limitation of the
> human mind.) A person can then look at an arbitrarily
> complex collection of nodes, see patterns, and see ways
> to group and rearrange things.
I love to stand back 10 feet or more from a huge graph and try to see the
patterns or clusters in all the *dots*. I am also in favor of the notion of
*drilling down*, in which key topics are first exposed. Double-click any
node and you get a new plane with more detail surrounding that node.
> --For text nodes, though, where each node is fundamentally
> different from every other node, the utility of graphics
> is a lot less clear.
Text nodes can generally be transformed into a named topic, assuming, of
course, that the text node does, indeed, represent a well-constructed
> --There is one area where good use of graphics makes sense,
> though -- prioritizing with respect to evaluations.
> Simply ordering isn't enough. A list of 5 options ordered
> from best to worst could represent 4 great ideas with
> marginal ideas and one bad one, or 4 lousy ideas and one
> good one. The system can use graphics to identify the
> rating of each node at a glance.
> --Beyond that, though, I'm not sure I see a lot of value.
> Even with categories, there are so many potential
> categories that the system easily expands beyond the
> 5-7 types that will allow human pattern-recognition to
> function well.
So we get to do an IBIS on this?
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
of the message and its attachments and notify email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 17:57:53 PDT