Initially called Liquid View, now called Dynamic View and ships in Liquid | Author.
My PhD work is to “analyse current methods of performing a Literature Review and known hypertext opportunities and design specific visually augmented views to augment the student ability better deliver on the University PhD requirements assessment criteria and build and live in such a system to ascertain what is particularly useful for specific use-cases” as agreed with Les Carr and Wendy Hall.
The guide to conducting a literature review on the University of Southampton website is clear: “Conducting a literature review enables you to demonstrate your understanding and knowledge of the existing work within your field of research. Doing so allows you to identify any undeveloped areas or unexplored issues within a specific debate or field of study. This, in turn, helps you to clearly and persuasively demonstrate how your own research will address one or more of these gaps.” This guide is without an author itself so it is, a bit ironically, difficult to cite by anything more than it’s web address: http://library.soton.ac.uk/ld.php?content_id=31944998 It follows with specific recommendations on writing your literature review:
For all of these points the citation information needs to be available in useful digital form for a visualisation system to be useful beyond a demo and this is why I developed the Visual-Meta system: http://wordpress.liquid.info/printed-meta/ and developed the Liquid | Reader to be able to experience and improve a full workflow: http://www.liquid.info/reader.html
The first bullet point hints about visualisations which can show visual lines between sources. For this aspect I have built the Dynamic View into Liquid | Author, as demonstrated in this video on YouTube viewed over 30,000 times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCpJTRd0hrE&t=16s and described on the Liquid | Author website, which also lists the (highly positive) user reviews: http://www.liquid.info/author.html
The other points reflect less on a potential visualisations and more on the student’s mental effort of critically engaging and structuring an (linear) argument focused on the research topic. These are aspects traditionally covered by plain text but which hint at visual augmentation.
The point of my PhD is not primarily to augment the student to do the work, but to demonstrate to the examiner that the work as indeed done.
In view of this, I am still working on how to best show citation sources in the Dynamic View as blogged under: