Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Andy Matuschak 17. sij
How should we evaluate tools for thought? There's no simple metric, as far as I can tell. The best tools change your paradigm anyway, so your old metrics (books printed per year?) aren't what matter. Here's one (vague, but focusing): how much meaning is unlocked on the margin?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Joel Chan, owning it while I'm honing it
Provocative question! This q is quite similar to what we grapple with in research. Agree there is no simple metric, need to triangulate. NSF-sponsored creativity support tools workshop (led in part by ) had this as a major conclusion:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Joel Chan, owning it while I'm honing it 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andy_matuschak @benbendc
For me, one focusing point is the extent to which the conceptual space expands. So we should look for qualitative rather than quantitative shifts (or if quant, looking for changes in the function, not just slope).
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Joel Chan, owning it while I'm honing it 30. sij
One nice example of this sort of qualitative shift measure is this work by : rate at which new standardized keywords are added to a field:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Joel Chan, owning it while I'm honing it 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andy_matuschak @benbendc
Folks in visual analytics also grapple with this: they want to create tools that increase p(insight), but that is hard to conceptualize and measure: - they come to a similar conclusion
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"