W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > March 2010

RE: Please provide feedback on User Interaction Storyboard

From: Twigger, Simon <simont@mcw.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:09:21 -0500
Message-ID: <1448A38A42714048B9C53E473E13CCF00293BEBE@davis.hmgc.mcw.edu>
To: "Andersson, Bo H" <Bo.H.Andersson@astrazeneca.com>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Hi Bosse,

Im coming to this with limited background knowledge of this phase of the project but I liked the storyboard that you sent out. I'm not sure where you'd like comments to go so for now I'll put a few on here.

Who is the intended audience of the storyboard? Phrases such as Linked Data might not translate well for non-semantic web audiences. Linked data is also quite vague, some specific examples of actual data that would be linked in might help people understand what advantage this brings to the clinician.

Could you make the diagram be more pictorial, less textual? The images are nice but I have to read all the text to know what is going on so ultimately the images don't add much. A diagram more explicitly showing the flow of events and data might help convey what is going on, this could be annotated with call outs with some text to describe what was going on at a given step.

Is it worth having two diagrams - one with the current way things are done, the other with the (improved/streamlined/faster) version in a TMO-enabled system? This might highlight what benefits the TMO would bring compared to the current reality. 

You could even have three versions (!). The first diagram might show the desired flow of events in an ideal world (how you would think things should work if life were perfect and we could have it all - what would a patient imagine should be happening behind the scenes in this brave new world of high tech integrated data?), another version might showing the actual barriers that exist currently, preventing the ideal version from occuring, the third version would indicate where TMO, semantic web, LD, etc. would remove/reduce some/all of the barriers and get us close to the ideal view of things.

Hmm - now I have written all this, here's another suggestion - have an actual Story board. Tell a story - Use a 'real' example of Bob the clinician trying to do a clinical trial in a specific disease area, how he tries to find patients, how he interacts with his patient Alice and how this is augmented with TMO/Linked data, how he finds a useful piece of data via LD, how this leads to different treatment and better patient outcome. If you can pick a specific disease then the linked data types could be more specific, the treatment changes would be more specific, etc. and might resonate better with the audience. This story approach would take more time to create (outline & disease-specific details may be available from existing use cases?) but I think it would illustrate why the TMO/LD is important very effectively. Software like Comic Life (Plasq, http://plasq.com/ mac and windows) can be really fun for these types of things - make a comic strip of Bob's interactions with a TMO-enabled EHR!

Hope that helps!


-----Original Message-----
From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org on behalf of Andersson, Bo H
Sent: Fri 3/26/2010 8:46 AM
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: TMO: Please provide feedback on User Interaction Storyboard


To be able to progress the work with the TMO - user
interface/interaction we need your feedback on the storyboard. 


TMO-UI wiki: http://esw.w3.org/HCLSIG/PharmaOntology/Interface 



Please send your feedback by Wednesday, March 31 at latest.


Kind regards,


Confidentiality Notice: This message is private and may contain confidential and proprietary information. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system and note that you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of the contents of this message is not permitted and may be unlawful.
Received on Monday, 29 March 2010 14:42:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:42 UTC