Abstract
Recent prior studies with argumentation systems have shown that, unfortunately, with larger learner groups using argumentation software over longer periods of time, argument maps inevitably increase greatly in size and complexity, often leading to learner confusion. To help users understand and navigate within large and complex argument maps, we implemented an initial version of mini maps within an existing tested argumentation system. This isan implementation of the general usability pattern “overview + detail”. In addition, in order to facilitate the interaction with larger argument maps, the “anchor principle” has been implemented to define an anchor area in a workspace. Evaluation studies showed that, using mini-maps and anchors, the orientation of students could be improved.
Chapter PDF
References
Baudisch, P., Good, N., Bellotti, V., Schraedley, P.: Keeping things in context: a comparative evaluation of focus plus context screens, overviews, and zooming. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2002, pp. 259–266. ACM (2002)
Bederson, B.B., Boltman, A.: Does Animation Help Users Build Mental Maps of Spatial Information? In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, INFOVIS 1999, pp. 28–35. IEEE Computer Society Press (1999)
Burmester, M., Hassenzahl, M., Koller, F.: Usability istnichtalles – Wegezuattraktiven Produkten. I-Com Zeitschrift für interaktive und kooperative Medien 1, 22–40 (2002)
Cockburn, A., Savage, J.: Comparing speed-dependent automatic zooming with traditional scroll, pan and zoom methods. In: Proceedings of the British Computer Society Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, People and Computers XVII, pp. 87–102 (2003)
Cockburn, A., Karlson, A., Bederson, B.B.: A review of overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces. ACM Comput. Surv. 41(1), 1–31 (2009)
Kosara, R., Miksch, S., Hauser, H.: Semantic Depth of Field. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, INFOVIS 2001, pp. 97–104. IEEE Computer Society Press (2001)
Kuhn, D.: The Skills of Argument. Cambridge University Press (1991)
Niebuhr, S., Pinkwart, N.: Usability requirements for exploratory learning environments: the case of educational argumentation systems. In: Dragon, T., Mavrikis, M., Gutierrez-Santos, S., Mclaren, B.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Support for Exploratory Environments at the 11th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS), pp. 64–72 (2012)
Osborne, J.: Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse. Science 328(463), 463–466 (2010)
Plaisant, C., Carr, D., Shneiderman, B.: Image-Browser: Taxonomy and Guidelines for Designers. IEEE Software 12(2), 21–32 (1995)
Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., McLaren, B.M.: Computer-Supported Argumentation: A Review of the State-of-the-Art. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 5(1), 43–102 (2010)
Tidwell, J.: Designing Interfaces: Patterns for Effective Interaction Design. O‘Reilly (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Le, NT., Niebuhr, S., Drexler, D., Pinkwart, N. (2013). Scaffolding Computer Supported Argumentation Processes through Mini Map Based Interaction Techniques. In: Marcus, A. (eds) Design, User Experience, and Usability. Web, Mobile, and Product Design. DUXU 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8015. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39253-5_59
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39253-5_59
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-39252-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-39253-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)