Chris, Mark & Glossaries

I met with Chris Gutteridge and Mark Anderson for lunch in Southampton today (Chinese, quite good) and we talked mostly about glossaries, after discussions on how much of academia is nonsense, or at least sub-optimally designed. Chris said something like Scholarly communications should in support of the Scientific method. This is not at all the case today though. Science and Academia are very different but academia should at least support the scientific method. I like that. 

BTW, guys, when I refer to your names, there should be a way for you to be notified or a site for you should list it maybe? Anyway, that’s another challenge. 

Glossaries

When mostly talked about glossary systems, taking some time to agree on terminology and then use cases. 

It became clear that this is something which we are passionate about so we really hacked into it. 

We discussed several perspectives and decided that the system should be net based, not just local, so as to be able to deal with group glossaries and working from multiple devices. 

Interactions

To make a glossary entry you can enter it into whatever front end system you are using, just like making a note card. If you are in a word processor or a system like that and you want text in your document to become glossary entry, simply select it, keyboard shortcut/menu choice and ‘Assign As Glossary Term’ and you get the same dialog box, which you can add text to as well as links and this is important: the Glossary frame/document will have exactly the same interactions available as a regular document. 

We decided that only the glossaries which are in the document text will be appended to the document when it is published. The glossary will be appended to the document at the end of the document, under a ‘Glossary’ header. This will enable the reader to skip down to the glossary and learn new terms, if desired. This method is also computer-understandable so any enabled reader software will be able to show the glossary entry when text with a glossary entry for it is interacted with somehow. 

There was a suggestion that the first occurrence of text with a glossary entry attached will be bolded or something else visually, to indicate that it has a glossary entry. My wife Emily thought this might make the document a bit messy, if there are a lot of entries in the glossary, so this is up for testing. IF, however, a term merits special attention, it can of course be manually bolded or have a Comment° attached to it.

Benefits

  

The benefits of such a system would be to allow someone to write a clear and concise document without having to explain every specialist term, which could make documents more clear and concise.. It would furthermore benefit readers who are new in a field.

Research Criteria (11 April version 2)

The project I am working on is to understand and to attempt build ‘an amazing thinking space’ focused on thinking when authoring an academic paper. The shaping criteria for this space is based on my philosophy of Liquid Information, which I worked on with Sarah Walton, the manifesto of which includes this introduction:

“When you are liquid relevant information is always within eye’s reach and relevant tools within hand’s reach. Everything is apparent at a glance – document icons communicate, tools are deeply explorable. You are informed – not overwhelmed. You can zig and zag in every direction. In any direction. Making paths, relationships and meaning as you go along – with your information, your tools and your media itself. You have a fluid overview of everything and you are in total control.” (Hegland, 1997)

Professional

The author will be required to spend some time to learn how to use this space in order to be effective. This is to remove lazy tendencies of simply putting buttons on the screen for commands. The amount of time the author should be required to spend should be as low as we can make it and the presentation/teaching of how to use the system needs to be an integral part of the design of the system itself.

Tangible

The ‘stuff’ the author works with should feel tangible. This means that direct manipulation should be employed where possible and internal models should reflect the author’s models as closely as possible. 

A Document View

It must be the same text and same data as the academic document being produced, not a separate mental or programatic space – it must be a view of the document, not an attachment.

Augment Thought

It must augment the thinking which will lead to a thorough understanding of the issues concerned. This will include: 

“identify issues and assumptions, recognise important relationships, make correct inferences, evaluate evidence or authority, and deduce conclusions” (Tsui, 2002)

Richly Interactive

It is taken as a foundational position that interactivity is of prime importance. This means that the author should be able to change the view fluently without a cost in concern of loosing previous views nor a cost of wondering how the desired view changes can be brought about. We get what Ted Nelson calls “non-sequential writing with free user movement.” (Nelson, T. email 08/07/02).

Relevant information are within eyes reach and relevant tools within hands reach. The author is not constrained by icon click over-simplicity, the author commands their information as richly as they command language.

Highly Visual

The reason for building this space is to use the visual processing power of the brain, together with the motor abilities of the hands to augment the prefrontal and frontal cortex’s higher level thinking, giving the author glanceable impressions and focused details. 

Connected

The space needs to be able to ‘zoom’ into other documents through links, as well as other resources, and back out again, smoothly.

Research Criteria (11 April, version 1)

New version: http://wordpress.liquid.info/research-criteria-11-april-version-2/

 

The project I am working on is to understand and to attempt build ‘an amazing thinking space’ focused on thinking when authoring an academic paper. The shaping criteria for this space is:

Profesional

The author will be required to spend some time to learn how to use this space in order to be effective. This is to remove lazy tendencies of simply putting buttons on the screen for commands. The amount of time the author should be required to spend should be as low as we can make it and the presentation/teaching of how to use the system needs to be an integral part of the design of the system itself.

Tangible

The ‘stuff’ the author works with should feel tangible. This means that direct manipulation should be employed where possible and internal models should reflect the author’s models as closely as possible.

A Document View

It must be the same text and same data as the academic document being produced, not a separate mental or programatic space – it must be a view of the document, not an attachment.

Augment Thought

It must augment the thinking which will lead to a thorough understanding of the issues concerned. This will include:

“identify issues and assumptions, recognise important relationships, make correct inferences, evaluate evidence or authority, and deduce conclusions” (Tsui, 2002)

Richly Interactive

It is taken as a foundational position that interactivity is of prime importance. This means that the author should be able to change the view fluently without a cost in concern of loosing previous views nor a cost of wondering how the desired view changes can be brought about.

Highly Visual

The reason for building this space is to use the visual processing power of the brain, together with the motor abilities of the hands to augment the frontal cortex’s higher level thinking.

Connected

The space needs to be able to ‘zoom’ into other documents through links, as well as other resources, and back out again, smoothly.

Chris, Mark & Glossaries

I met with Chris Gutteridge and Mark Anderson for lunch in Southampton today (Chinese, quite good) and we talked mostly about glossaries, after discussions on how much of academia is nonsense, or at least sub-optimally designed. Chris said something like Scholarly communications should in support of the Scientific method. This is not at all the case today though. Science and Academia are very different but academia should at least support the scientific method. I like that. 

BTW, guys, when I refer to your names, there should be a way for you to be notified or a site for you should list it maybe? Anyway, that’s another challenge. 

Glossaries

When mostly talked about glossary systems, taking some time to agree on terminology and then use cases. 

It became clear that this is something which we are passionate about so we really hacked into it. 

We discussed several perspectives and decided that the system should be net based, not just local, so as to be able to deal with group glossaries and working from multiple devices. 

Interactions

To make a glossary entry you can enter it into whatever front end system you are using, just like making a note card. If you are in a word processor or a system like that and you want text in your document to become glossary entry, simply select it, keyboard shortcut/menu choice and ‘Assign As Glossary Term’ and you get the same dialog box, which you can add text to as well as links and this is important: the Glossary frame/document will have exactly the same interactions available as a regular document. 

We decided that only the glossaries which are in the document text will be appended to the document when it is published. The glossary will be appended to the document at the end of the document, under a ‘Glossary’ header. This will enable the reader to skip down to the glossary and learn new terms, if desired. This method is also computer-understandable so any enabled reader software will be able to show the glossary entry when text with a glossary entry for it is interacted with somehow. 

There was a suggestion that the first occurrence of text with a glossary entry attached will be bolded or something else visually, to indicate that it has a glossary entry. My wife Emily thought this might make the document a bit messy, if there are a lot of entries in the glossary, so this is up for testing. IF, however, a term merits special attention, it can of course be manually bolded or have a Comment° attached to it.

Benefits

  

The benefits of such a system would be to allow someone to write a clear and concise document without having to explain every specialist term, which could make documents more clear and concise.. It would furthermore benefit readers who are new in a field.

Research Criteria (11 April version 2)

The project I am working on is to understand and to attempt build ‘an amazing thinking space’ focused on thinking when authoring an academic paper. The shaping criteria for this space is based on my philosophy of Liquid Information, which I worked on with Sarah Walton, the manifesto of which includes this introduction:

“When you are liquid relevant information is always within eye’s reach and relevant tools within hand’s reach. Everything is apparent at a glance – document icons communicate, tools are deeply explorable. You are informed – not overwhelmed. You can zig and zag in every direction. In any direction. Making paths, relationships and meaning as you go along – with your information, your tools and your media itself. You have a fluid overview of everything and you are in total control.” (Hegland, 1997)

Professional

The author will be required to spend some time to learn how to use this space in order to be effective. This is to remove lazy tendencies of simply putting buttons on the screen for commands. The amount of time the author should be required to spend should be as low as we can make it and the presentation/teaching of how to use the system needs to be an integral part of the design of the system itself.

Tangible

The ‘stuff’ the author works with should feel tangible. This means that direct manipulation should be employed where possible and internal models should reflect the author’s models as closely as possible. 

A Document View

It must be the same text and same data as the academic document being produced, not a separate mental or programatic space – it must be a view of the document, not an attachment.

Augment Thought

It must augment the thinking which will lead to a thorough understanding of the issues concerned. This will include: 

“identify issues and assumptions, recognise important relationships, make correct inferences, evaluate evidence or authority, and deduce conclusions” (Tsui, 2002)

Richly Interactive

It is taken as a foundational position that interactivity is of prime importance. This means that the author should be able to change the view fluently without a cost in concern of loosing previous views nor a cost of wondering how the desired view changes can be brought about. We get what Ted Nelson calls “non-sequential writing with free user movement.” (Nelson, T. email 08/07/02).

Relevant information are within eyes reach and relevant tools within hands reach. The author is not constrained by icon click over-simplicity, the author commands their information as richly as they command language.

Highly Visual

The reason for building this space is to use the visual processing power of the brain, together with the motor abilities of the hands to augment the prefrontal and frontal cortex’s higher level thinking, giving the author glanceable impressions and focused details. 

Connected

The space needs to be able to ‘zoom’ into other documents through links, as well as other resources, and back out again, smoothly.

Research Criteria (11 April, version 1)

New version: http://wordpress.liquid.info/research-criteria-11-april-version-2/

 

The project I am working on is to understand and to attempt build ‘an amazing thinking space’ focused on thinking when authoring an academic paper. The shaping criteria for this space is:

Profesional

The author will be required to spend some time to learn how to use this space in order to be effective. This is to remove lazy tendencies of simply putting buttons on the screen for commands. The amount of time the author should be required to spend should be as low as we can make it and the presentation/teaching of how to use the system needs to be an integral part of the design of the system itself.

Tangible

The ‘stuff’ the author works with should feel tangible. This means that direct manipulation should be employed where possible and internal models should reflect the author’s models as closely as possible.

A Document View

It must be the same text and same data as the academic document being produced, not a separate mental or programatic space – it must be a view of the document, not an attachment.

Augment Thought

It must augment the thinking which will lead to a thorough understanding of the issues concerned. This will include:

“identify issues and assumptions, recognise important relationships, make correct inferences, evaluate evidence or authority, and deduce conclusions” (Tsui, 2002)

Richly Interactive

It is taken as a foundational position that interactivity is of prime importance. This means that the author should be able to change the view fluently without a cost in concern of loosing previous views nor a cost of wondering how the desired view changes can be brought about.

Highly Visual

The reason for building this space is to use the visual processing power of the brain, together with the motor abilities of the hands to augment the frontal cortex’s higher level thinking.

Connected

The space needs to be able to ‘zoom’ into other documents through links, as well as other resources, and back out again, smoothly.

Liquid Information
thoughts

by frode hegland

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011