ON TOOLS DESIGN – incomplete notes for discussion purposes

24/7/05

CIRCULAR MAPPING ARRAYS (web based)

Although most of ds21 group seem to agree that face-to-face meetings are the most important and productive, we are distributed widely, therefore also need a shared ‘virtual’ space within which to collaborate. My suggestion is that we build an experimental web-based mapping tools using circles + nodes. All might use same basic template with a text-input box in the centre and a text display box for each node. Maybe there is an algorithm for determining/varying the number of nodes, as required…or maybe there is a series (n+1) of ready-made templates with 0-n nodes equidistantly arrayed.

Here is an example that was developed to map out the uses/purposes of personal research in academic institutions:
WARNING: Plugin disabled picture!
In this case, the nodes are already given values, but users are encouraged to make links that are creatively (opportunistically) helpful. The value of this is that implicit possibilities may be made explicit...also that 'problems' may begin to be seen as part of a more complex set of potential (latent) solutions.

(LIKELY APPLICATIONS):
examples…

1) Purpose-resource mapping.

This could be applied in another way by declaring a given ds21 objective and then asking all team members to map all its essential requirements within the same mapping space as the resources available to meet it. The following sections reflect possible stages in an interactive dialogue between computer and user:

FRAME 1 - A feasible objective
“ds21 2005 – what achievable practical outcome would you like to identify?”
(this text would be displayed underneath a circle with an empty text box at its centre…user inputs the answer and presses ‘NEXT’ or ‘UPLOAD’, etc.)

FRAME 2 – KEY NEEDS (i.e. minimum key resources required)
“what minimum attributes/resources would be necessary to achieve this outcome?”
Here, the notion of ‘resource’ is intended to be generic. It might, for example, be a vital task or an answer to a key question that is implicit in another ‘objective’ or issue that is already displayed on the circle…. User inputs answer to the centre/side text box and when s/he presses ‘NEXT’ this becomes displayed in a new space on the circle)

FRAME 3 - Prioritise the importance of these needs (A)
After the user has input the answers s/he presses ‘NEXT’ and is taken to the next stage in which all her (+preset) answers become displayed in a vertical list, following the order that they were input.

e.g.

• working with the appropriate experts
• having planning approval
• understanding the group dynamics
• having support from the money market
• working within an appropriate community
• having the best scientific/technical framework
• having an appropriate aesthetics/style approach

“please re-rank the resources in order of their importance” (drag-and-drop)

OR

“Which is the most important of these resources?”
(each one would be removed, from the list in turn, leaving the rest to be ranked)

FRAME 4 – Can NEEDS become RESOURCES? (B)
“Could any of these ‘needs’ be seen as opportunities for meeting other needs?”
(this one would also be removed from the list)
etc. until the user gives up or selects all of them until they disappear

FRAME 5 - Are you able to (help to) deliver “this resource”?
(“this resource”=each specific resource, taken from the list, one by one). The list of resources needed is offered, one by one
(accessible skills/knowledge/awareness invested in you)
“grade your capability to meet each of the listed needs” a 5-level scale (i.e. 0–4) (if>1) “how willing and able are you to meet this requirement?” (0-4)

FRAME 6 - Key resources that are accessible from within ds21
(skills/knowledge/awareness that resides in other members of ds21)
“list and rank ds21 colleagues who (you believe) are able to address any/each of these needs”
(a pull-down menu of names of all of the ds21 team
each name selected from the pull-down menu appears on a list (r. of circle?)
each name selected disappears from the pull-down menu
the list can be re-ranked afterwards)

FRAME 7 - Key resources that are external to ds21
(potential skills/knowledge/awareness that may be derived from ds21 sub-groups) “list/rank ds21 colleagues who (you believe) are able to address any/each of these needs”

2) Mapping individual states of commitment/readiness

A 2-part questionnaire would be used to map enthusiasm for a common (or individual’s) theme.

a) Emotional self-evaluation. A pull-down menu (a) would elicit how each person feels towards specified aspects of the project:

VERSION 1
Natural language input Interpreted value
I feel hostile/resentful of… 0.
I feel negative towards… 1.
I feel disinterested/ambivalent about… 2.
I am interested in/attracted to… 3.
I am totally passionate about… 4.

VERSION 2
Natural language input Interpreted value
I feel hostile to… 0.
I feel resentful of… 1.
I feel negative towards… 2.
I feel disinterested in… 3.
I feel ambivalent about… 4.
I am interested in… 5.
I am attracted to… 6.
I am already enthusiastic about… 7.
I have an enduring excitement about… 8.
I am completely passionate about… 9.

If someone scores between 0 and 2 they would be invited to give reasons and to define specific resources that might make them feel more positive.

b) A second circular questionnaire map would ask users to rate their commitment to act towards an agreed (or individual-nominated) theme..

I refuse to… 0.
I am unwilling to… 1.
I am reluctant to… 2.
I am not especially interested, but might… 3.
I cannot decide whether or not to… 4.
I am willing to… 5.
I am willing and happy to… 6.
I have committed myself to… 7.
I have dedicated myself to… 8.
I am unstoppably determined to… 9.

If someone scores 3, 4 or 5 they would be asked to define the resources that would attract them and/or support them.

In order to avoid creating an absolute, linear, externally-referenced index of numbers from these questions you could ‘normalise’ (mathematically) the figures for each individual after some time, say, using psychological methods. This means that everyone could use ‘natural language’, or even their own preferred dialect of it. Lotfe Zadeh (*) offers a model for this kind of user interface that, potentially, creates interfaces between the normalised numbers they represent. In other words, where one person always works, say between 0 and 9 and another one never ranges below 2 or above 8 these ranges could be interpreted/compensated and used to map equivalent relations (relons) between these, and other players in a given set. Users might even be able to moderate their own discursive terms (actually, these would be elicited by dynamic questionnaires). Zadeh has shown how machines can create individual user-oriented scales of quality by asking questions that get each user to input workable comparative gradings between his/her own values in a given context.

John
24/7/05