ConversationWorkshop : ToddDavies

HomePage :: Categories :: PageIndex :: RecentChanges :: RecentlyCommented :: Login/Register
Most recent edit on 2005-04-03 17:02:15 by ToddDavies

Additions:

Themes from introductory conversation



Deletions:

Themes from conversation




Edited on 2005-04-03 17:01:40 by ToddDavies

Additions:

My notes from the workshop

Themes from conversation

Breakout group: Debatepedia and What should a thread look like?



Deletions:

My notes from the workshop

Themes from conversation

Breakout group: Debatepedia and What should a thread look like?




Edited on 2005-04-03 17:00:47 by ToddDavies

Additions:

Themes from conversation

Breakout group: Debatepedia and What should a thread look like?



Deletions:
Themes from conversation Breakout group: Debatepedia and What should a thread look like?


Edited on 2005-04-03 16:59:21 by ToddDavies

Additions:
Themes from conversation
Breakout group: Debatepedia and What should a thread look like?

Deletions:
Themes from conversation
Breakout group: Debatepedia and What should a thread look like?


Edited on 2005-04-03 16:53:28 by ToddDavies

Additions:
Themes from conversation
Breakout group: Debatepedia and What should a thread look like?

Deletions:
=Themes from conversation=
=Breakout group: Debatepedia and What should a thread look like?=


Edited on 2005-04-03 16:50:24 by ToddDavies

Additions:
=Themes from conversation=
=Breakout group: Debatepedia and What should a thread look like?=
Breakout group: Debatepedia and What should a thread look like?
Mechanisms
* Bad features:
* persuasion
galvanization
* consensus
* articulation - brainstorming
* group self-awareness
* entertainment
* distraction/diversion from other debates
* a decision
 See My Tiny Life about the world of Lambda Moo
* indvidual attitude change / education /empathy
* conflict / violence
* indiv./coll. identity
* knowledge exchange
fact checking
* moderateness of views
 bridging versus bonding
* foster/coerce focus
* facilitate encourage use of evidence
* Rollback (unposting)
* Repudiation/nonrepudiability


Edited on 2005-04-03 16:35:00 by ToddDavies

Additions:
Audience
Breakout group: Debatepedia and What should a thread look like?
Largely copied from Ping Yee's butcher paper notes:
Features of debate
* Good features: NPOV (neutral point of view) appears to work; separate artifact and conversation; user profiles
* Bad features:
Goals of debate: main ones according to Cliff, in literature
* persuasion
galvanization
* consensus
* articulation - brainstorming
* group self-awareness
* entertainment
* distraction/diversion from other debates
Outcome of debate may be:
* a decision
 See My Tiny Life about the world of Lambda Moo
* indvidual attitude change / education /empathy
* conflict / violence
* indiv./coll. identity
* knowledge exchange
fact checking
* moderateness of views
 bridging versus bonding
Design desiderata
* foster/coerce focus
* facilitate encourage use of evidence
Possibly good/bad mechanisms
* Rollback (unposting)
* Repudiation/nonrepudiability

Deletions:
Audience


Edited on 2005-04-03 13:15:10 by ToddDavies

Additions:

My notes from the workshop


Themes from conversation

Conducting conversation
Re-use
Semiotic continuity
Reputation
Context
Design space
Tools
Audience

Deletions:



Edited on 2005-04-03 12:02:48 by ToddDavies [cut comment from HenryRodriguez, moving to the Col-leccio page]

Deletions:
Hello Todd, sorry for my late response.

It is nice to know at least that Deme exists. Hopefully we will be able to talk about it for possible cooperation and experience exchange.
I think that paraphrasing is very important in CMC. Kerstin, co-author of this paper and also co-designer of Col•lecció, has made studies about it. In one of her studies [1] she found that indeed quoting was extensible used to preserve the context of the discussion.
Just now the system allows quoting. However, it is quote the whole text similar to email programs. In previous studies that we have made in an annotation context in an academic writing course, we have observed that users might need to quote specific part of the text. We have worked on that and an interface where users can quote different levels has been designed. Users can quote to a paragraph or a sentence from the original text. Additionally numbering of the paragraphs and sentences is also possible. This strategy was used by our user. For detailed information see [2].

Comments are attached in a very simple way. The document is presented in a frame and the comments are presented below. The system recognizes that a comment belong to a document by the context in which the comment is made.

As you mentioned, a lot of problems, technical ones, have been found to attach a comment to a particular text. Today some technologies allow this, in XML for example. However, our approach is that making an annotation to a particular part of the document’s context AND locate the annotation in that context, could somehow divert the overview of the discussion. We could end with discussions of particular part of the document and not about the document in general. This needs more investigation indeed.

As you said, we think that threading could lead to tangents. We are planning in fact to design a study in which we could support this claim, let’s say, in statistical form.

I also think that threading can work in some contexts and that reinforcing it could lead to interesting results. That is why we have designed the Domain Interactivity Diagram that is also presented in our position paper for this workshop.

[1] Severinson Eklundh, K. (1998) To quote or not to quote: Setting the context for computer-mediated dialogues, Interaction and Presentation Laboratory IPLab, Royal institute of technology, 1998, pp. 1-31.

[2] Rodriguez, H. & Brunsberg, S. (2004). Making digital annotations using the World Wide Web in Studies. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Writing book series: Effective Learning and Teaching of Writing: Current Trends from Research, (Ed. 2), (pp. 105-120), USA: Kluwer Academic Publisher. ISBN 1402027249


Oldest known version of this page was edited on 2005-04-02 14:53:16 by HenrryRodriguez [resonse]
Page view:
Hello Todd, sorry for my late response.

It is nice to know at least that Deme exists. Hopefully we will be able to talk about it for possible cooperation and experience exchange.
I think that paraphrasing is very important in CMC. Kerstin, co-author of this paper and also co-designer of Col•lecció, has made studies about it. In one of her studies [1] she found that indeed quoting was extensible used to preserve the context of the discussion.
Just now the system allows quoting. However, it is quote the whole text similar to email programs. In previous studies that we have made in an annotation context in an academic writing course, we have observed that users might need to quote specific part of the text. We have worked on that and an interface where users can quote different levels has been designed. Users can quote to a paragraph or a sentence from the original text. Additionally numbering of the paragraphs and sentences is also possible. This strategy was used by our user. For detailed information see [2].

Comments are attached in a very simple way. The document is presented in a frame and the comments are presented below. The system recognizes that a comment belong to a document by the context in which the comment is made.

As you mentioned, a lot of problems, technical ones, have been found to attach a comment to a particular text. Today some technologies allow this, in XML for example. However, our approach is that making an annotation to a particular part of the document’s context AND locate the annotation in that context, could somehow divert the overview of the discussion. We could end with discussions of particular part of the document and not about the document in general. This needs more investigation indeed.

As you said, we think that threading could lead to tangents. We are planning in fact to design a study in which we could support this claim, let’s say, in statistical form.

I also think that threading can work in some contexts and that reinforcing it could lead to interesting results. That is why we have designed the Domain Interactivity Diagram that is also presented in our position paper for this workshop.

[1] Severinson Eklundh, K. (1998) To quote or not to quote: Setting the context for computer-mediated dialogues, Interaction and Presentation Laboratory IPLab, Royal institute of technology, 1998, pp. 1-31.

[2] Rodriguez, H. & Brunsberg, S. (2004). Making digital annotations using the World Wide Web in Studies. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Writing book series: Effective Learning and Teaching of Writing: Current Trends from Research, (Ed. 2), (pp. 105-120), USA: Kluwer Academic Publisher. ISBN 1402027249
Page History :: 2005-04-03 17:02:15 XML :: Owner: HenrryRodriguez :: Search:
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional∞ :: Valid CSS∞ :: Powered by Wikka Wakka Wiki 1.1.5.3∞
Page was generated in 0.1380 seconds