Re: seedling topic list for SWUI06

Duane Degler wrote:

> Tom and Lloyd,
> 
> Lloyd, I think that adopting Tom's suggestion of "personal/social" rather
> than "community" might be a more appropriate label - this will umbrella
> other future issues like the interactions for agent empowerment/authority,
> transparency of social/legal rules being embodied into ontology/reasoning,
> and possible social interactions beyond what we generally now think of as
> "(online) community."

You're right.  "Personal and social challenges" stands now as broader than
"community".

> Tom's point about tasks/goals speaks to one of my ongoing challenge areas:
> the *process* of developing semantic tools, data and applications. I see a
> real lack of user-centered processes in SW development. One of the things
> that user-centered design brings to the party is a framework for
> understanding user needs. This includes understanding users' (and in work
> settings, their organization's) situation/context of use, goals, tasks,
> experience, attitudes, and desired outcomes. I believe that it will be
> extremely important to apply UCD methods to achieve usable/successful
> outcomes. I also believe that the usability/HCI community is going to need
> to take a critical look at existing methods and how they will need to change
> to meet the needs of SW design. It's all still a little early/formative - a
> future challenge?

This is likely to be, rightly, a core discussion in this field.  I addressed
this just now in the topic list is to change the last bullet in the bottom group:

     * the changed user experience
           o new personas, tasks and goals
           o new sitations, contexts and scenarios
           o user-centered design and other methodologies for designing SWUIs

In my last email I mentioned "horizontal" topics in my last email, which apply
to most or all the other topics.  These are the methodologies topics.  So we're
not just talking about "tasks and goals" but "tasks in search" and "tasks in
browsing", etc.  The Semantic Web give a very flexible and powerful way
to represent and share knowledge, but making it comprehensibly presented for any
and all users is tough: it's a mapping from how SW represents and processes to
what a human is likely to think, want and do.  As you indicate below, we should
focus here on what new UCD issues there are for SW.  An interesting topic to
explore.

> I also want to be sure we don't slip into a trap of becoming
> "information-seeking-centric" in our view of the SW. The IT community
> focuses heavily on transactional applications and data exchange/interaction
> that all could (I believe) benefit heavily from semantic enablement. If I
> were to go out today to design a claims-handling system for health insurance
> claims-handlers and the public, I would be looking closely at how we capture
> doctor/patient conversation, diagnosis, treatment progress, patient
> awareness/choice of plan/coverage, patient awareness of medical issues,
> longitudinal outcomes, processing/eligibility rules, and claim-handler
> experience/needs (the list goes on...). We need to inter-weave informing and
> transaction semantically, and there are real user interaction challenges in
> that arena.

We have room for those who build better interfaces for finding information,
even if for detailed, famaliar tasks, as long as it's novel, and especially
if it's uniquely enabled by the Semantic Web.  But I agree that special value
lies in seeing how the large-scale interaction can change for the better
rather than simply facilitating existing detailed tasks in large-scale
interactions that stay the same.  Your example above is important for showing
how a large-scale process is examined.  It shows determining genuine needs from an
existing situation.  A naive question: how do you find unanticipated needs?
In larger interaction paradigm shifts, people don't know they need something until
they've been forced to become used to using it.  If SW does make new types of
previously unimagined interaction possible, what methodologies apply to make
sure they're useful before people get used to using them?

-Lloyd

> It is possible that there is nothing unique about the SW in all of this...
> But the conversation about challenges is very beneficial.
> 
> Duane
>  
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-semweb-ui-request@w3.org 
>>[mailto:public-semweb-ui-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lloyd Rutledge
>>Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 8:38 AM
>>To: public-semweb-ui@w3.org; T.Heath
>>Subject: Re: seedling topic list for SWUI06
>>
>>
>>Thanks Tom.  I've incorporated your comments in the workshop webpage
>>(http://swui.semanticweb.org/swui06/) and in the SWUI SWUI.  
>>Details inline.  Here's the changed part of the list:
>>
>># user as author
>>     * publishing and sharing
>>     * indentity
>>     * approachable interfaces
>># community dymanics
>>     * trust
>>     * privacy
>>     * adoption
>>
>>SWUI SWUI entry points for the categories above are:
>>
>>http://aries.ins.cwi.nl/sesame/explorer/show.jsp?repository=sw
>>ui&useLabels=yes&value=%3chttp%3a%2f%2fswui%2esemanticweb%2eor
>>g%2fswui%23author%3e
>>
>>http://aries.ins.cwi.nl/sesame/explorer/show.jsp?repository=sw
>>ui&useLabels=yes&value=%3chttp%3a%2f%2fswui%2esemanticweb%2eor
>>g%2fswui%23community%3e
>>
>>T.Heath wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Lloyd, all,
>>>
>>>This is a really interesting list, and a great focal point for the 
>>>SWUI community; very encouraging, thanks :) Taking you up on your 
>>>offer, I'd like to offer a couple of comments/propose some 
>>
>>changes in three areas:
>>
>>>1. Tasks/Goals -> Search/Browse
>>>2. User as author: publishing/sharing
>>>3. Personal/social challenges brought about by Semantic Web
>>>
>>>1. Tasks/Goals -> Search/Browse
>>>I believe the emphasis on search/browse in web usage 
>>
>>obscures a real 
>>
>>>understanding of the goal of the user. At the same time a 
>>
>>semantic web 
>>
>>>has the potential to deliver tools that truly support more varied 
>>>tasks and activities online; the search engines and point-n-click 
>>>hypertext of the conventional web are just one way of 
>>
>>seeing the web. 
>>
>>>On that basis I think there'd be value in nesting Search and Browse 
>>>within a category related to Tasks/Activities in general 
>>
>>and how the 
>>
>>>user experience of these is changed by a semantic web.
>>
>>I think task and goals should perhaps become one of several 
>>"horizontal"
>>issues that apply to most topics.  The list has other topics 
>>to which changes tasks apply: to search, browse, publish, and 
>>others.  "New paradigms"
>>may apply across topics as well.  Perhaps "approachable" too. 
>> I'll work on this.
>>
>>
>>>2. User as author: publishing/sharing
>>>This deserves a category of its own in my view, divorced 
>>
>>from the all 
>>
>>>but the last of its three subtopics ("approachable interfaces"). 
>>>Perhaps nesting Publishing within a broader 
>>
>>Tasks/Activities heading 
>>
>>>might highlight some commonalities with a tasks/activities 
>>
>>viewpoint.
>>
>>I agree.  User as author is a top category, with publishing 
>>and sharing with in it.
>>
>>
>>>3. Personal/social challenges brought about by Semantic Web The 
>>>"trust" and "community dymanics" points currently under "user as 
>>>author" have broader applicability in my opinion, and may warrant a 
>>>category of their own (perhaps something like "Personal/social 
>>>challenges brought about by Semantic Web"). This would allow other 
>>>related topics such as privacy and identity on the semantic 
>>
>>web to be 
>>
>>>encompassed. (aside: SW privacy was even discussed by BBC 
>>
>>News after 
>>
>>>WWW2006, so this issue will certainly be big in the public mind).
>>
>>"Community dynamics" is now a top category, with subcategories.
>>
>>Thanks again, Tom.
>>
>>-Lloyd
>>
>>
>>>Naturally I'd be interested to hear what others think about these 
>>>ideas
>>>:)
>>>
>>>Best wishes,
>>>
>>>Tom.
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 4 June 2006 20:12:26 UTC