gego.info

back to Work >> back to Other

Goal of the study was to compare the performance of ‘Planning Line’ glyphs (PL) with PERT charts.
The reason for the decision to compare PL with PERT lies in the ability of PERT to display uncertainties, related to the ending, beginning and duration of a certain project task. Exactly this ability is one of the main advantages, the ‘Planning Lines’ graph provides. The reason for not using similar graphs, like the GANT graph, is that they are not able to display uncertainties in time. Following this the comparison with PL would not be very expressive.

1. Subjects

The subjects are graduate students of informatics and business informatics in a usability engineering workshop.
The Austrian university system allows students to organize their studies in a very individual way. This enables them to determine their own schedule and to work part-time during their studies. Therefore the subjects participating in this workshop exhibit rather heterogeneous knowledge and experience levels.
We provided a tutorial, that briefly repeated how to use PERT, a method known by most participants, and introduced the new method ‘Planning Lines’, to guarantee the minimal common level of knowledge for the experiment.

2. Number of Subjects

In December 2004, 48 students of the workshop ‘Usability Engineering’ participated in the experiment.
From the experiment preparation team four members supervised the experiment and answered questions concerning the experiment or questionnaire.

3. Experiment Objects and Procedures

This section provides a short overview of the experiment objects, which were used in our study.
The experiment participants received the following experiment materials

• 1. Background Questionnaires: A one-sided questionnaire was provided at the beginning of the experiment. Participants were asked to give general information (Name, Age…) and specific information about their experience with PERT and similar graphs.
• 2. Answering sheets for task solutions
  • a. Part A: This part contained a three sided answering sheet for questions and tasks, concerning the usage of PL or PERT. Four different versions of this part were available, differing in treatment (PL, PERT) and data set (1, 2), and were randomly handed out to the subjects.
  • b. Part B: This part contained a project plan and a five sided answering sheet for questions, which were based specific tasks in the project plan. Four different versions of this part were available, differing in treatment (PL, PERT) and data set (1, 2), and were randomly handed out to the subjects.
  • c. Part C: On an on-sided answering sheet participants had to draw a graph, based on textual task information. Once again four versions were available, differing in treatment (PL, PERT) and data set (1, 2), and were randomly handed out to the subjects.
• 3. Feedback Questionnaire: At the end of the experiment every subject had the possibility to give his or her feedback to the PL graph.
  Before handing out the experiment material, in the order listed above, a short tutorial, that briefly repeated how to use PERT, a method known by most participants, and introduced the new method ‘Planning Lines’, to guarantee the minimal common level of knowledge for the experiment, was held by one of the experiment design members.
  Afterwards the experiment material was handed out. There was a time limit of 45 minutes to finish the given questionnaires and answering sheets. Additional to this subjects were asked to note down the current time before start and after finishing a part of the answering sheet. This was done to measure the time every participant needed to solve the given questions and tasks (in some hypotheses we refer to the time a subject needs to finish a task).

Finally subjects had the possibility to give feedback to the PL graph in a one-sided questionnaire.

Abstract | Contents | References

————————————————————————————————————-

Abstract

Today the amount of all kind of digital data (documents, e-mails, pictures, music, etc.), existing on every user’s computer, is continuously growing. Users are faced with huge difficulties when it comes to handling the existing data pool, respectively finding specific information in it. The Blackman project is a research projects, which aims to find new ways of searching and finding semi-structured data by integrating semantic metadata. It allows cross border searches spanning various applications (Outlook, Internet Explorer) and OS activities (file access, network traffic) and improves the human working process by offering context specific, automatically generated links similar to Smart Tags that are created using ontologies. With Blackman’s help it should be possible for every user to get correct and meaningful answers for questions like:

• ’Which photos did I shot during the meeting with Chuck in Vienna last month?’ or
• ’I know I visited a website while working on this paper. What is the URL?’.
• …

In this master thesis I will provide solution concepts and prototypes (developed in C# .NET Framework 2.0 BETA) for two modules of the Blackman system: the data collector for file system information and the client application (GUI). Additionally I will focus on the research field of Information and Data Visualization, starting with a study, comparing different existing solution approaches, regarding data visualization and functionality, with the Blackman approach by using user scenarios and ending with a closer look on the research field of information and data visualization.

————————————————————————————————————-

Contents

List of Abbreviations
I. Introduction

1. Problem Statement
2. Vision Statement
3. Related Work
   1. MyLifeBits
   2. Haystack
   3. SemanticLife

—————————————————————————–

II. Blackman Architecture

1. Project Structure
2. System
   1. Technical overview
   2. Native SDX Modules
      1. Lime – File System Module
      2. Outlook Module
      3. Razorback – Network Sniffer
      4. Generic SDX Modules
   3. XML File Import
   4. GPS Data Collector
   5. Phone Data Collector
   6. SDX Remoting and Generic Request Handler
   7. Semantic Storage
      1. The Approach
      2. The Model
   8. Semantic Enrichment
   9. Querying Interface
   10. Client Application
   11. System State

—————————————————————————–

III. Distributed Components

1. Lime File System Watcher
   1. Introduction
   2. File System Monitoring vs. Application Level Monitoring
   3. Design Requirements
   4. Architecture and Core Implementation
   5. FileFSW
   6. EXIFextractor
   7. FSWatcher
   8. RDWatcher
   9. XMLDoc
   10. Data Transport
2. Lime – Monitor Application
   1. Introduction
   2. Design Requirements
   3. Architecture and Core Implementation
3. XRay – Client Application
   1. Introduction
   2. Design Requirements
   3. Architecture and Core Implementation
   4. Main Components
      1. XRay – Main Container
      2. XRay – Search Container
   5. XRay Calendar Panel
   6. XRay Timeline Panel
   7. XRay Item Panel
   8. Blackman Query Language Classes
   9. Components in Development
      1. XRay Item Panel
      2. Fulltext-Search Component
      3. Semantic Search Component
      4. Semantic Sidebar

—————————————————————————–

IV. Scenarios

1. Introduction
2. Procedure
   1. High-Level Scenarios
   2. Sub Scenarios
   3. Classification and Comparison
   4. Usability Benefit
   5. Tactic
   6. The Benefit/Tactics Matrix
3. Scenario 1
   1. Plus Scenarios
   2. Minus Scenarios
   3. Sub Scenarios
   4. Classification and Comparison
4. 12. Scenario 2
   1. Plus Scenarios
   2. Minus Scenarios
   3. Sub Scenarios
   4. Classification and Comparison

—————————————————————————–

V. Information Visualization

1. Introduction
2. Basic Terminology
3. Related Work
   1. Document Visualization
   2. Graphs
   3. Hierarchies
4. Human-Computer Interaction
   1. Design Principles
      1. Offer information feedback
      2. Reduce working memory load
      3. Provide alternative interfaces for novice and expert users
   2. Humans & Visualization
5. The Information Access Process
   1. Interaction Model
   2. The Berry-Picking Model
6. Classification of Visualization Techniques
   1. User Task Classification
   2. Data Classification
7. Visualization Techniques
   1. Brushing and Linking
   2. Panning and Zooming
   3. Focus-Plus-Context
   4. Magic Lenses
   5. Starting points
      1. Examples
      2. Dialogs
      3. Wizards
   6. Direct Manipulation of the Search Query
      1. Venn Diagrams
      2. Filter-Flow Model
      3. Block Oriented Query Preview
      4. Help-Index Model
      5. Magic Lenses
   7. Rules of Thumb
8. A Taxonomy for Integrating Visualization in Blackman
   1. Introduction
   2. Taxonomy
      1. Role
      2. Architecture
   3. XRay & Semantic Sidebar
   4. Excursus: Query Problematic
   5. Future Outlook

—————————————————————————–

VI. Conclusion

1. References
2. List of Figures
3. List of Listings
4. List of Tables

————————————————————————————————————-

References

• [Bat89] BATES, MARCIA J.: The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 1989.
• [Bod00] BODKER, S.: Scenarios in user-centered design – setting the stage for reflection and action. 2000.
• [BS93] BODKER S., ET AL: Del 1.1, The EuroCODE Conceptual Framework: Preliminary, 1993.
• [Bus96] BUSH, VANNEVAR: As we may think. interactions, 3(2):35–46, 1996.
• [Car98] CARLINER, S.: Designing wizards. Training and Development, 1998.
• [CJ91] CARROLL J.M., KELLOGG W.A., ROSSON M.B: Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface. 1991.
• [CM97] CARPENDALE M.S.T., COWPERTHWAITE D.J., FRACCHIA F.D.: Extending distortion viewing from 2D to 3D. Computer Graphics and Applications, 1997.
• [D.E97] D.E., FYOCK: Using visualization to maintain large computer systems, 1997. [DW05] DAVID WOOD, PAUL GEARON, TOM ADAMS: A Platform for Semantic Web Storage and Analysis. International Conference on WWW, 2005.
• [DY93] DEGI YOUNG, BEN SHNEIDERMAN: A graphical filter/flow model for Boolean queries: An implementation and experiment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1993.
• [EA99] EYTAN ADAR, DAVID KARGAR, LYNN ANDREA STEIN: Haystack: per-user information environments. CIKM ’99: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on Information and knowledge management, 1:412–422, 1999.
• [EG05] EVA GAHLEITNER, WERNHER BEHRENDT, JÜRGEN PALKOSKA EDGAR R. WEIPPL: On Cooperatively Creating Dynamic Ontologies. Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (Salzburg Austria), 2005.
• [Eke05] EKELHART, ANDREAS: The Blackman Project: Querying semi-structured data for the ’Semantic Desktop’. Masterthesis, University of Technology Vienna, Vienna, 2005.
• [ES92] EICK S.G., STEFFEN J. L., SUMNER E. E.: SeeSoft A tool for visualizing software, 1992.
• [Fen05a] FENKAM, P.: Requirements Analysis and Specification, Lectures for Course. http://www.infosys.tuwien.ac.at/Teaching/Courses/RA/.slides/, 2005.
• [Fen05b] FENZ, STEFAN: The Blackman Project: The Blackman Project: Gathering and storing semi-structured data for the ’Semantic Desktop’. Masterthesis, University of Technology Vienna, Vienna, 2005.
• [GN98] GERSHON N., CARD S., EICK S.: Information Visualization, 1998. [GN99] GERSHON N., CARD S., EICK S.: Information Visualization Tutorial, 1999.
• [htt05a] HTTP://TM4J.ORG/TMNAV.HTML: Topic maps 4 java., 2005.
• [htt05b] HTTP://WWW.X1.COM/: X1 Desktop Search, Enterprise Edition, 2005.
• [J.93] J., NIELSEN: Usability Engineering. Academic Press Inc., Boston, 1993.
• [JB84] JAMES BOYLE, WILLIAM ODGEN, STEVEN UHLIR PATRICIA WILSON: QMF usability. Proceedings of IFIP INTERACT, 1984.
• [JB95] JOHNSON B., SHNEIDERMAN B.: Tree maps: A space filling approach to the visualization of hierarchical information structures. Computer Graphics and Applications, 1995.
• [JB02] JEEN BROEKSTRA, ARJOHN KAMPMAN, FRANK VAN HARMELENE: Sesame: a Generic Architecture for Storing and Querying RDF and RDF Schema. 1st International Semantic Web Conference, 2002.
• [JG02] JIM GEMMELL, GORDON BELL, ROGER LUEDER STEVEN DRUCKER CURTIS WONG: MyLifeBits: fulfilling the Memex vision. MULTIMEDIA ’02: Proceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on Multimedia, 1:235–238, 2002.
• [Kle05] KLEMEN, M.D., WEIPPL E.R. TJOA A.M.: The Semantic Desktop: A Semantic Personal Information Management System based on RDF and Topic Maps. 2005.
• [LB03] L. BASS, B.E. JOHN: Link usability to software architecture patterns through general scenarios. 2003.
• [LM94] LAMMING M., FLYNN M.: ’Forget-me-not’ intimate computing in support of human memory, 1994.
• [MA04] M. AHMED, H. H. HOANG, M. S. KARIM S. KHUSRO MONIKA LANZENBERGER K. LATIF ELKE MICHLMAYR K. MUSTOFA H. T. NGUYEN ANDREAS RAUBER ALEXANDER SCHATTEN THO MANH NGUYEN A. MIN TJOA: ’SemanticLIFE’ – A Framework for Managing Information of A Human Lifetime. iiWAS, 2004.
• [MBR90] MARY B. ROSSON, JOHN M. CARROLL, RACHEL K. E. BELLAMY: Smalltalk Scaffolding: A case study of minimalist instructions. Proceedings of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1990.
• [McB02] MCBRIDE, B.: Jena. 2002.
• [Mil56] MILLER, GEORGE: The Magical Number Of Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limitations in Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review 63, 1956.
• [NW95] NEWMAN W., LAMMING M: Interactive System Design. Addison-Wesley Publishing, Wokingham, England, 1995.
• [RBY99] RICHARD BAEZA-YATES, BERTHIER RIBEIRO-NETO: Modern Information Retrieval. ACM Press, 1999.
• [RGG93] ROBERTSON G. G., CARD S.K., MACKINLAY J.D.: Information visualization using 3D interactive animation. Communications of the ACM 36, 1993.
• [SF96] SCOTT FERTIG, ERIC FREEMAN, DAVID GELERNTER: Lifestreams: an alternative to the desktop metaphor. CHI ’96: Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, 1:410–411, 1996.
• [Shn97] SHNEIDERMAN, BEN: Designing the user interface: startegies for effective humancomputer interaction. Addison-Wesley, 1997.
• [Tec06] TECHTARGETNETWORK: Taxonomy-Word Definition. http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition, 2006. Zuletzt aufgerufen am 19.01.2006.
• [Tuf83] TUFTE, EDWARD: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphich Press, Chelshire, 1983.
• [Tuf90] TUFTE, EDWARD: Envisioning Information. Graphich Press, Chelshire, 1990. [Tuf97] TUFTE, EDWARD: Visual Explanations. Graphich Press, Chelshire, 1997.
• [UF02] USAMA FAYYAD, GEORGES G. GRINSTEIN, ANDREAS WIERSE: Information Visualization in Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2002.
• [VLO93] VICKI L. O’DAY, ROBIN JEFFRIES: Orienteering in an information landscape: how information seekers get from here to there. Proceedings of INTERCHI, 1993.
• [WE05] WEIPPL E.R., KLEMEN M., LINNERT M. FENZ S. GOLUCH G. TJOA A.M: Semantic Storage: A Report on Performance and Flexibility. Proceedings of DEXA, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), 2005.
• [WJA95] WISE J. A., THOMAS J.J., PENNOCK K. LANTRIP D. POTTIER M. SCHUR A.: Visualizing the nonvisual: Spatial analysis and interaction with information from text documents. Proceedings of Information Visualization Symposium 95, 1995.

Abstract | Contents | References

————————————————————————————————————-