I just finished Cognitive Dimensions of Informatio...
# thinking-togethers
Stefan
12/19/2018, 10:10 AMI just finished Cognitive Dimensions of Information Artefacts: a tutorial by
Thomas Green and Alan Blackwell
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/CognitiveDimensions/CDtutorial.pdf
It provides a great framework for UI/UX-related properties of system design starting with a list of dimensions as sort of a catalogue, and then also applying them to practical examples. One of the examples is about visual programming languages and applies the framework to ProGraph and LabView.
I found it offers a very helpful perspective and language on how to think about what makes a system great from a user perspective and obviously the example of visual programming languages should make it a really good fit for this group.
đź‘Ť 5
a
Andrew Reece
12/19/2018, 2:17 PMThese frameworks are a really helpful way to structure thinking around the topic.
One that I've found useful is Daniel Moody's ' The “Physics” of Notations: Towards a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering_ http://www.cs.uu.nl/docs/vakken/arm/literature/Moody2009-DesignScience.pdf
while trying to find the PDF for this again, I came across a paper looking at using it directly for visual programming language analysis: Towards an Operationalization of the “Physics of Notations” for the Analysis of Visual Languages (Storrle & Fish) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d4bc/b466b1390295354d0cc897ab02058f2f8cad.pdf
Andrew Reece
12/19/2018, 2:19 PMif I remember correctly, physics of notations (PoN) is slightly more prescriptive than cognitive dimensions (CD)
Andrew Reece
12/19/2018, 2:22 PMQuoting PoN:
"The Physics of Notations incorporates both a Type IV theory (Section 3) and a Type V theory (Section 4), which are higher evolutionary forms than the CDs framework (Type I). However it should not be seen as a direct competitor for the CDs frame-work as its scope is much more modest (visual notations rather than cognitive artifacts). Instead, it should be seen as complementary: it provides exactly the type of detailed, domain-specific analysis that the authors of the CDs framework argued was necessary to supplement the “broad brush” analysis provided by CDs"
Type 1: Theory for analyzing
Type 4: Theory for predicting and explaining
Type 5: Theory for design and action
2 Views