- From: David Huynh <dfhuynh@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:05:22 -0700
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web@w3c.org
Dan Brickley wrote: > > David Huynh wrote: > > [snip] > > [many thanks for opensourcing btw!!] >>> Maybe there's a chance to collaborate here, what do you think? >>> I'm also not aware of any upcoming semweb UI workshops. WWW2009 >>> might be >>> a good place... >>> >> We can carry on this conversation off the list. > > Please don't dissapear offlist! At least www-archive@w3.org is always > available as a place you can have ad-hoc conversations be cc:'d to a > publically archived list. See > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/ > > However we do already have a public-semweb-ui list, > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-ui/ ... where such > discussions are very much ontopic. That list deserves a bit of > attention and life. To sign up, do the usual W3C lists thing, ie. send > a mail to public-semweb-ui-request@w3.org with 'Subscribe' in the > subject line. Details at http://www.w3.org/Mail/Request Ah, sorry, I was talking about Georgi's invitation to collaborate :-) But let me take this chance to ask. What would people like to see in a paper to, say, WWW 2009, that talks about a UI paradigm for browsing graph-based data? One very obvious thing would be an overall implementation architecture that can be reproduced. Another would be some usage statistics. For example, UI event logs show that people did use all 4 one/many transitions many things to many things (pivot): 1088 events many things to one thing (focus): 878 one thing to one thing (regular link): 1311 one thing to many things: 450 Now these numbers don't prove anything in the rigorous sense, as the screencast itself might have influenced the users' behavior, but they might indicate something--not sure how to word that yet. One somewhat naive way to phrase this is that, if there is no way to move to a set of many things, then users are blocked (1088 + 450) / (1088 + 450 + 878 + 1311) = 41% of the time. There's also an idea to do a trivial pursuit game where users are given such a question as, - "Were skyscrapers in Hong Kong designed by more Chinese architects or foreign architects?" - "Which industries do large bank board members invest in? Give a distribution over the industries." - "Are children of politicians likely to pursue careers in politics? Are they likely to succeed?" We can measure success rate and learn something about how people translate such a question into a sequence of browsing actions. Anyway, please let me know what you want to see in such a paper. David
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 23:06:07 UTC