Skip to main content

Contextual Divorces: Towards a Framework for Identifying Critical Context Issues in Collaborative-Argumentation System Design

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT 1999)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1688))

  • 537 Accesses

Abstract

This paper provides some theoretical and empirical bases of a framework aimed at identifying critical context issues related to the design of collaborative-argumentation systems especially systems supporting collective design rationale. The framework is intended to help developers anticipate, diagnose, and repair divorces from context which can impede system usability. The theoretical bases of the framework are the notion of contextual divorces, and a descriptive model of context, adapted from Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1990), which describes the context in terms of the main components of an interaction situation, e.g., scene, participants, spatial setting, tasks, etc. The empirical bases of the framework are the evidence provided by some studies evaluating the usability of design rationale systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bellotti, V. & MacLean, A. Integrating and communicating design perspectives with QOC design rationale. The Amodeus Project, ESPRIT Basic Research 7040, Working Paper # ID/WP29, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Buckingham Shum, S. Design Argumentation as Design Rationale. The Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology (Marcel Dekker Inc: NY), Vol. 35,Supp. 20, 95–128, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Buckingham Shum, S. Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation Resource Site, 1997 [http://kmi.open.ac.uk/~simonb/csca/]

  4. Buckingham Shum, S. and Hammond, N. Argumentation-Based Design Rationale: What Use at What Cost? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 40(4), 603–652, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Buckingham Shum, S., MacLean, A. Bellotti, V. & Hammond, N.V. Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction. 12, pp. 267–300, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Conklin, J.E. & Begeman, M.L. gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6,303–331, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fischer, G., Lemke, A.C., McCall, R. & Morch A.I. Making argumentation serve design. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 393–419, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fischer, G., McCall, R. & Morch A.I. Design environments for constructive and argumentative design Proceedings of the CHI’89 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, ACM Press, pp. 269–275, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fischer, G., Ostwald, J. & Stahl, G. Conceptual Frameworks and Computational Support for Organizational Memories and Organizational Learning, Project Report, Department of Computer Science and Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado at Boulder. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Karsenty, L. An empirical evaluation of design rationale documents. Proceedings of the CHI’96 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, ACM Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kerbrat-Orecchioni. Les interactions verbales. Paris, Armand Colin, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  12. van Dijk. T.A. Towards a theory of context and experience models in discourse processing. In H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The Construction of Mental Models during Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Giboin, A. (1999). Contextual Divorces: Towards a Framework for Identifying Critical Context Issues in Collaborative-Argumentation System Design. In: Bouquet, P., Benerecetti, M., Serafini, L., Brézillon, P., Castellani, F. (eds) Modeling and Using Context. CONTEXT 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1688. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48315-2_41

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48315-2_41

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66432-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48315-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics