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.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
Buckingham Shum, S. Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation Resource Site, 1997 [http://kmi.open.ac.uk/~simonb/csca/]
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.
Buckingham Shum, S., MacLean, A. Bellotti, V. & Hammond, N.V. Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction. 12, pp. 267–300, 1997.
Conklin, J.E. & Begeman, M.L. gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6,303–331, 1988.
Fischer, G., Lemke, A.C., McCall, R. & Morch A.I. Making argumentation serve design. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 393–419, 1991.
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.
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.
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.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni. Les interactions verbales. Paris, Armand Colin, 1990.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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