Re: [Heartlogic-dev] getting closer - a few comments on UI

[William L. Jarrold]

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 23:01 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> > Okay the blue dotted line looks GREAT!!!  Much better than the "birds."
>
> OK, good.
>
> > Okay more comments...For your reference, here is the text.........
> >
> > HAL believes that the following is true / false:
> >
> > Spouses love each other.        N = 2, M = 0.50, SD = 0.00
> >
> > You judged this statement as moderately believable
> >
> > ...................Now here are my reactions.....
> >
> > (1)
> >
> > The...
> >
> > "Thanks for your rating! Ratings like yours can help us evaluate and
> > improve our AI models."
> >
> > ...just seems icky.  I can't suggest anything better.  Anyone have better
> > ideas.  People will get sick of it.  Maybe it should hotlink to a page
> > on our research goals.  Whatever.  We can come back to fixing this later.
>
> One thing we can do is change the text somewhat as a function of the
> number of ratings per session.  So the first time someone visits the
> page, they will get "Thanks for your rating! .. etc" and then second
> time they will get something else.  Maybe after the third time, we won't
> bother with any introductory/encouragement text to keep things clean and
> simple.  Comments?

Sounds great!  But I'm really intersest in what Josh has to say.
The 1st time its long
The 2nd - 4th time is is medium
The 5th etc time it is note there.

BUT, (something for later, after baby pilot) maybe we could give them an 
image of a yummy chocolate or some other regward (a food pellet from a 
rat experiment for those who appreciate cynism) at random times every 
4-10 items they complete.

All sorts of creative possibilities here.  They may interfere somewhat 
with our data gathering but maybe not too much.

> > (2)
> >
> > Can you change ...
> >
> > "HAL believes that the following is true / false:"
> >
> > ...to ....
> >
> > "HAL believes that the following"
> >
> > ...IF the item is unreversed.  If the item is reversed, I am not sure
> > what we should do and I am out of time.  Pick your own words or just
> > have it say "mumblesnort" now (-; and that will be our clue to fix it.
>
> This is a trivial change once there is reversed information in the
> database.  So I'm leaving it broken as a reminder to get the database
> loaded with items.
>
> > (3)
> >
> > Can you put this info, "N = 2, M = 0.50, SD = 0.00" below
> > "You judged this statement as moderately believable."
> >
> > Rather than phrase it as ......
> >
> > "N = 2, M = 0.50, SD = 0.00"
> >
> > .....can you instead phrase it as.....
> >
> > "2 have rate this so far.  The average believability rating is 0.5 on
> > a scale of -2 (highly unbelievable) to 2 (highly believable)."
>
> Done.

Great thanks.  But

(a) the green rectangle with the stats is still there.
(b) the text has two problems in it, viz....

You judged this statement as <b >moderately believable</b >. We have 
collected 2 ratings so far (including yours).  The average believability 
rating is 0.50 on a scale of -1.0 (highly unbelievable) to 1.0 (highly 
believable)

...
        b1: it has a <b > moderately belieevel</b> html typo.
        b2: the scale can't be -1.0 to 1 bc user rating is all integers.

I think this should be the long version to be shown the first time.
Then after it should be....

# of ratings so far: 2
Average rating: 0.5 (-2 to 2)

....<whiney voice on> ya know i kinda like to see the standard
deviation.  People aren't THAT phobic of math science are they?  In
spite of that, I would midly prefer a range of 1 to 5 over -2 to 2.
Josh (or...ppst, Peter?, you there? (-:), can you break the tie here?
So this is how it should look...

# of ratings so far: 2
Average rating: 3 (1 to 5)
Standard Deviation: 1.3

...but like I said, Josh/Peter maybe you can decide this before I obsess
too much.

> > ...One more thing:
> >
> > Can the "Nuetral" radio button have the same height and maybe even
> > same width as the others?
>
> Height is easy.  See if it looks good enough since width is tricky to
> control.

Fine.

> > __DATA__
> > RULENREV|Jesus loves his father because: (a) Sons love their fathers. and
> > (b) Jesus is God's so\
> > n.
> > RREN|Jesus loves his father not because: (a) Sons love their fathers. nor
> > (b) Jesus is God's so\
> > n.
> > UNREV|Jesus loves his father.
> > GREV|Jesus does not love his father.
> > UNREV|The city of Vienna, Austria is wet.
> > GREV|The city of Vienna, Austria is not wet.
> > |Rivers are a kind of water.
> > |Rivers are not a kind of water.
> > |If water touches x then x is wet.
> > |If water touches x then x is not wet.
> > |The river Danube is a river.
>
> Instead of using a vertical bar, I suggest spreading it over multiple
> lines like this:

Adios Mio!  Excellente.  Estoy de acuerdo.
<<< omg, to the max, i agree >>>

> RULENREV
> Jesus loves his father because: (a) Sons love their fathers. and  (b)
> Jesus is God's son.
>
> RREN
> Jesus loves his father not because: (a) Sons love their fathers. nor (b)
> Jesus is God's son.
>
> UNREV
> Jesus loves his father.

Ding.  Almost there.  Less than 100 emails away from completion of
Operation Baby Pilot.

Bill
> --
> If you are an American then support http://fairtax.org
> (Permanently replace 50,000+ pages of tax law with about 200 pages.)