[seek-dev] Re: [seek-kr-sms] UI

[Ferdinando Villa]

One way I would frame this discussion, thinking about the comment about
"visual modeling and analysis language" and the whole UI issue, is that
we need to start a synthesis (top-down) effort aimed at understanding
what's the language that shapes an ecologist's thinking when they
approach a problem, and characterize its relationship with the two
conceptual frameworks we've been concentrating on so far: the KR
framework and the workflow framework (in their abstract nature, before
going down to OWL and Ptolemy, and WITHOUT one thought to any pretty
screenshot!). The exercise should highlight whether we need to (a) have
enough of one - maybe slightly extended - and infer the other, (b) find
something that sits in the middle, or (c) find something totally
different. This done, we should be able to easily define the visual
language that most closely embodies it.

Back to personal opinions, I'll just add that it's my belief that this
process, although it needs very open minds, doesn't necessarily have to
be very long and very hard, and I think we have all the pieces in place
to quickly prototype the right UI (as opposed to the "advanced" one!)
when the idea is clear, without having to distance ourselves much from
things as they stand now...

ferd

On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 08:56, Rod Spears wrote:
> In many ways I think the current user-interface work for Kepler is 
> almost orthoginal to this discussion.
> 
> There are many issues with the current UI that need to be fixed ASAP, 
> but I don't think it should keep us from getting a group together to 
> start down the path that Shawn has outlined.
> 
> If we (and we should) take a more process oriented approach to 
> developing the UI this work really has little, if anything, to do with 
> Kepler for quite sometime.
> 
> As I see it the Kepler UI is really the "advanced" UI for SEEK. There is 
> a whole lot of work that needs to go on before that.
> 
> Deana has a very valid point as to how to begin this work with/without 
> the usability position being filled. At the same time, many different 
> aspects of the UI are being to take shape and time is of the essence.
> 
> Rod
> 
> 
> Deana Pennington wrote:
> 
> > Shawn & Rod,
> >
> > I think these are all great suggestions, and we've been discussimg 
> > putting together a group of ecologists for a couple of days of 
> > testing, but:
> >
> > 1) we thought that there are some major issues with the interface as 
> > it stands right now that need to be fixed before we try to get a group 
> > together, and
> > 2) a decision needs to made about the useability engineer position, so 
> > that person can be involved right from the start in user testing and 
> > UI design
> >
> > So, I think we should table this discussion until the above 2 things 
> > are resolved.  It's obvious that this needs to be addressed soon.
> >
> > Deana
> >
> >
> > Shawn Bowers wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Rod Spears wrote:
> >>
> >>> (This is a general reply to the entire thread that is on seek-kr-sms):
> >>>
> >>> In the end, there are really two very simple questions about what we 
> >>> are all doing on SEEK:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Can we make it work?
> >>>     a) This begs the question of "how" to make it work.
> >>>
> >>> 2) Will anybody use it?
> >>>     a) This begs the question of "can" anybody use it?
> >>>
> >>> Shawn is right when he says we are coming at this from the 
> >>> "bottom-up." SEEK has been very focused on the mechanics of how to 
> >>> take legacy data and modeling techniques and create a new 
> >>> environment to "house" them and better utilize them. In the end, if 
> >>> you can't answer question #1, it does matter whether you can answer 
> >>> question #2.
> >>>
> >>> But at the same time I have felt that we have been a little too 
> >>> focused on #1, or at the very least we haven't been spending enough 
> >>> time on question #2.
> >>>
> >>> Both Nico and Fernando touched on two very important aspects of what 
> >>> we are talking about. Nico's comment about attacking the problem 
> >>> from "both" ends (top down and bottom up)  seems very appropriate. 
> >>> In fact, the more we know about the back-end the better we know what 
> >>> "tools" or functionality we have to develop for the front-end and 
> >>> how best they can interact.
> >>>
> >>> Fernando's comment touches on the core of what concerns me the most, 
> >>> and it is the realization of question #2
> >>> His comment: "/I also think that the major impediment to an 
> >>> understanding that requires a paradigm switch is the early 
> >>> idealization of a graphical user interface/." Or more appropriately 
> >>> known as "the seduction of the GUI." (Soon to be a Broadway play ;-) ).
> >>>
> >>> We absolutely have to create a tool that scientists can use. So this 
> >>> means we have to create a tool that "engages" the way they think 
> >>> about modeling problems. Note that I used the word "engage", meaning 
> >>> the tool doesn't to be an exact reflection of their process for 
> >>> creating a models and doing analysis, but if has to be close enough 
> >>> to make them want to "step up to the plate" and "take a swing for 
> >>> the fence" as it were.
> >>>
> >>> In many ways too, Fernando's comment touch on the the problem I have 
> >>> always had with Kepler. The UI is completely intertwined with the 
> >>> model definition and the analysis specification. It has nearly zero 
> >>> flexibility in how one "views" the "process" of entering in the 
> >>> model. (As a side note, the UI is one of the harder aspects of 
> >>> Kepler to tailor)
> >>>
> >>> In a perfect world of time and budgets it would be nice to create a 
> >>> tool that has standalone Modeling and Analysis Definition Language, 
> >>> then a core standalone analysis/simulation engine, and lastly a set 
> >>> of GUI tools that assist the scientists in creating the models and 
> >>> monitoring the execution. Notice how the GUI came last? The GUI 
> >>> needs to be born out of the underlying technology instead of 
> >>> defining it.
> >>>
> >>> I am a realist and I understand how much functionality Kepler brings 
> >>> to the table, it gives us such a head start in AMS. Maybe we need to 
> >>> start thinking about a more "conceptual" tool that fits in front of 
> >>> Kelper, but before that we need to really understand how the average 
> >>> scientist would approach the SEEK technology. I'll say this as a 
> >>> joke: "but that pretty much excludes any scientist working on SEEK," 
> >>> but it is true. Never let the folks creating the technology tell you 
> >>> how the technology should be used, that's the responsibility of the 
> >>> user.
> >>>
> >>> I know the word "use case" has been thrown around daily as if it 
> >>> were confetti, but I think the time is approaching where we need to 
> >>> really focus on developing some "real" end-user use cases. I think a 
> >>> much bigger effort and emphasis needs to be placed on the 
> >>> "top-down." And some of the ideas presented in this entire thread is 
> >>> a good start.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Great synthesis and points Rod.
> >>
> >> (Note that I un-cc'd kepler-dev, since this discussion is very much 
> >> seek-specific)
> >>
> >> I agree with you, Nico, and Ferdinando that we need top-down 
> >> development (i.e., an understanding of the targeted user problems and 
> >> needs, and how best to address these via end-user interfaces) as well 
> >> as bottom-up development (underlying technology, etc.).
> >>
> >> I think that in general, we are at a point in the project where we 
> >> have a good idea of the kinds of solutions we can provide (e.g., with 
> >> EcoGrid, Kepler, SMS, Taxon, and so on).
> >>
> >> And, we are beginning to get to the point where we are 
> >> building/needing user interfaces: we are beginning to 
> >> design/implement add-ons to Kepler, e.g., for EcoGrid querying and 
> >> Ontology-enabled actor/dataset browsing; GrOWL is becoming our 
> >> user-interface for ontologies; we are designing a user interface for 
> >> annotating actors and datasets (for datasets, there are also UIs such 
> >> as Morhpo); and working on taxonomic browsing.
> >>
> >> I definately think that now in the project is a great time to take a 
> >> step back, and as these interfaces are being designed and implemented 
> >> (as well as the lower-level technology), to be informed by real 
> >> user-needs.
> >>
> >>
> >> Here is what I think needs to be done to do an effective top-down 
> >> design:
> >>
> >> 1. Clearly identify our target user group(s) and the general benefit 
> >> we believe SEEK will provide to these groups. In particular, who are 
> >> we developing the "SEEK system" for, and what are their 
> >> problems/needs and constraints.  Capture this as a report. (As an 
> >> aside, it will be very hard to evaluate the utility of SEEK without 
> >> understanding who it is meant to help, and how it is meant to help 
> >> them.)
> >>
> >> 2. Assemble a representive group of target users. As Rod suggests, 
> >> there should be participants that are independent of SEEK. [I 
> >> attended one meeting that was close to this in Abq in Aug. 2003 -- 
> >> have there been others?]
> >>
> >> 3. Identify the needs of the representive group in terms of SEEK. 
> >> These might be best represented as "user stories" (i.e., scenarios) 
> >> initially as opposed to use cases.  I think there are two types of 
> >> user stories that are extremely benefitial: (1) as a scenario of how 
> >> some process works now, e.g., the story of a scientist that needed to 
> >> run a niche model; (2) ask the user to tell us "how you would like 
> >> the system to work" for the stories from 1.
> >>
> >> 4. Synthesize the user stories into a set of target use cases that 
> >> touch a wide range of functionality.  Develop and refine the use cases.
> >>
> >> 5. From the use cases and user constraints, design one or more 
> >> "storyboard" user interfaces, or the needed user interface components 
> >> from the use cases.  At this point, there may be different possible 
> >> interfaces, e.g., a high-level ontology based interface as suggested 
> >> by Ferdinando and a low-level Kepler-based interface.  This is where 
> >> we need to be creative to address user needs.
> >>
> >> 6. Get feedback from the target users on the "storyboard" interfaces 
> >> (i.e., let them evaluate the interfaces). Revisit the user stories 
> >> via the storyboards. Refine the second part of 3, and iterate 5 and 6.
> >>
> >> 7. Develop one or more "prototypes" (i.e., the interface with canned 
> >> functionality). Let the user group play with it, get feedback, and 
> >> iterate.
> >>
> >> 8. The result should be "the" user interface.
> >>
> >>
> >> One of the most important parts of this process is to identify the 
> >> desired characteristics of the target users, and to pick a 
> >> representative group of users that can lead to the widest array of 
> >> use-cases/user-stories that are most benefitial to the target users.
> >>
> >> For example, we have primarily focused on niche-modeling as the use 
> >> case. (This isn't a great example, but bear with me) If our sample 
> >> user group only consisted of scientists that did niche modeling, or 
> >> if this were our target user group, we would probably build a user 
> >> interface around, and specific to niche modeling (i.e., niche 
> >> modeling should become an integral, and probably embedded, part of 
> >> the interface). Of course, for us, this isn't necessarily true 
> >> because we know we have a more general target user group. But, 
> >> hopefully you get the point.
> >>
> >>
> >> shawn
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Rod
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Deana Pennington wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In thinking about the Kepler UI, it has occurred to me that it 
> >>>> would really be nice if the ontologies that we construct to 
> >>>> organize the actors into categories, could also be used in a 
> >>>> high-level workflow design phase.  For example, in the niche 
> >>>> modeling workflow, GARP, neural networks, GRASP and many other 
> >>>> algorithms could be used for that one step in the workflow.  Those 
> >>>> algorithms would all be organized under some high-level hierarchy 
> >>>> ("StatisticalModels").  Another example is the Pre-sample step, 
> >>>> where we are using the GARP pre-sample algorithm, but other 
> >>>> sampling algorithms could be substituted.  There should be a 
> >>>> high-level "Sampling" concept, under which different sampling 
> >>>> algorithms would be organized.  During the design phase, the user 
> >>>> could construct a workflow based on these high level concepts 
> >>>> (Sampling and StatisticalModel), then bind an actor (already 
> >>>> implemented or using Chad's new actor) in a particular view of that 
> >>>> workflow.  So, a  workflow would be designed at a high conceptual 
> >>>> level, and have multiple views, binding different algorithms, and 
> >>>> those different views would be logically linked through the high 
> >>>> level workflow.  The immediate case is the GARP workflow we are 
> >>>> designing will need another version for the neural network 
> >>>> algorithm, and that version will be virtually an exact replicate 
> >>>> except for that actor.  Seems like it would be better to have one 
> >>>> workflow with different views...
> >>>>
> >>>> I hope the above is coherent...in reading it, I'm not sure that it 
> >>>> is  :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Deana
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> seek-dev mailing list
> >> seek-dev at ecoinformatics.org
> >> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/seek-dev
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> seek-kr-sms mailing list
> seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org
> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/seek-kr-sms
--