@device[postscript]

@begin(Majorheading)
Thesis Proposal:  
The Dynamic Relationship Between 
People and Electronic Information
In Distributed Networks
@end(Majorheading)

@center[@b{Wendy E. Mackay}]
@center[@b{@value<date>}]

@subheading[Abstract]

@begin[quotation]

Tools that support user productivity must take into account the 
dynamic interaction between the user and the information.  

rather than just the content of the information.

Networks of electronic mail and network news groups are an example
of a @i[co-adaptive system], in which the users change the system and
the system changes the user.  Other examples include: spreadsheets,
Management Information Systems, hypercard, Information Lens and
certain types of educational software.  Co-adaptive systems tend 
to reflect the organizations in which they are used and provide 
significant opportunities for user innovation, increased productivity
and enhanced adaptibility to change.

From the perspective of an individual, the relationship between 
an individual item of information (electronic or otherwise) and 
the person changes over time.  This means that tools designed to 
help users deal with information will be considered difficult or 
unsatisfactory if they cannot adapt to changes over time.

From the perspective of groups of users, the ways in which the
people use the system has a lot to do with critical mass and 
ability to share information.  Discovered that technical people 
develop "islands of expertise" -- akin to the gatekeeper concept,
which develops over time.  (Start out in an overload situation,
with too many messages, too many dl's, don't know what's important.
Over time, become interested in a few areas, learn who to ask 
when you need info about other things.  Email as a pointer to 
local experts.  Reduce info load, probably become known as an 
expert yourself, identifying certain areas and having other people 
forward things to you because they know you're interested.  Some 
people are information junkies -- others are much more focused.)

Dynamic nature:  how it affects individuals and the tools to support 
them.  How it affects organizations and how the organization adapts
to change.  Talk about Zuboff's "informated" organizations -- when 
feedback about becomes an important characteristic.


What makes people innovate:  provide feedback...
@end[quotation]

The value of a piece of information changes over time -- even if 
the content doesn't.  This relates to educational software 
and electronic communication in general.  It also says something 
about choice -- who's in control of the communication and the 
tools to control that communication.

In this thesis, I make a number of claims:

-

-

-



Outline:

@begin[enumerate]
Introduction and fundamental assertion

Definitions

Theoretical framework:  User context

Empirical findings: initial interviews about patterns of
email/phone/meeting use.  Cite other studies.

Resulting software design and new findings: Designs of Common Lens and
Argus.  Key findings with users.
	
Experimental tests???

General design implications

Conclusions:  moving toward co-adaptive systems.  Look 
at cooperative work implications -- making tradeoffs
based on the behavior of two or more people.
@end[enumerate]

Need to create a picture of the different pieces ... keep reworking 
it...

What do I know and have data to support:

@begin[enumerate]
Email use is diverse -- individuals within an organization, with the 
same job category use email in sdifferent ways.  However, it is 
not completely diverse -- the job influences the work in particular
ways, as does the organizational culture.  Thus, we would expect to 
find high incidences of certain characteristics in programmers 
across companies, and also certain characteristics that are unique 
to everyone in one organization but not another, regardless of 
job type.

email reflects the organization...

Interruptions with info affect people...

Programmers cannot design software for organizations 

Electronic communication is an example of a co-adaptive system.
(Others are:  spreadsheets, ed sw, info systems (MIS).)
@end[enumerate]


I'll want to talk about:

@begin[enumerate]
the role of feedback

Predictors of innovations

The balance of control between information senders and receivers

Co-apdaptive networks

The reasons why research has to included field work...

Integrated views of educational software and electronic communication.

@end[enumerate]

@newpage


Other relevant stuff:

@skip[2]
@begin[figure]
@begin[center]
@graphic(postscript=/mit/visual2/mackay/PS/message.cube.PS,
magnify=.75, BoundingBox = ".5inch, 5.5inch, 6inch, 10.25inch ")
@caption[A User-oriented View of Electronic Messages]
@end[center]
@end[figure]


Particularly suited to communication systems, because 
they are very dynamic, very diverse from user to user,
reflect overall work patterns.  




Other systems, such as lens, are based on the idea that 
the content of the information/message is sufficient for 
rules.  Also, it's rule based.

Challenge both.  When are rules important, when are neural 
nets?  When does user control, when does system, when 
is it shared?  When does the appropriate action depend
solely on content, solely on user's current state, and 
on a combination?  How to detect patterns, embody them,
make trade-off decisions/strategize, evaluate effectiveness
and design tools.  Predict the coming of co-adaptive 
systems.  Focus on optimizing trade-offs based on user's
preferences (which may well be influenced by corporate or 
other external pressures), not on a single optimal solution.



How does Argus reflect this difference in perspective?


Implications:

Design systems that capture the user's process of use over time 
and feed that information back to him/her.  Allow the user to 
then modify the tools based on that information.  Result:  a 
coadaptive system...

@newpage

What are the characteristics of Co-Adaptive systems?

Definitions

Finding examples of them

Creating them

Observing them

Predicting what happens with them.

Argue that a key characteristic is that users can modify them 
-- either by design or through accident.  Argue that feedback 
loops are important.  Also, dynamic situations will increase 
speed of co-adaptive evolution.

Argue that you can't design your software to be co-adaptive, 
explicitly.  Standard UI development techniques still act 
as though the final software is static -- a snapshot in time.
They're better than not doing it, because they provide a 
view of the process of a single user using the software over 
a discrete period of time under specified conditions.  But what 
if the user's use is changed due to other users, changed understanding,
new kinds of situations, changes in related technologies, etc.

Can we predict what kinds of systems are most likely to be co-adaptive?
Management Information Systems.  Electronic communication systems.
What else?  Educational systems?  Anything that has users operating 
with a complex, flexible system, that can be modified.

The myth that software is ever "done" -- it's not like a book, that 
can be placed on a shelf and still "work" years later.  Many dependencies,
on things that are based on shifting assumptions.

But, concentrate again on systems in which the content of the 
information exchanged changes the use of the system -- and thus 
results in co-adaptivity.  Example -- you can't force people to 
use email.  What will cause people to use email is if: a. it's 
easily accessible and b. it carries information that's considered 
to be of value.  If one or the other condition isn't met, people
won't use it.  Once it is assumed to be used, the determination 
of "value" will change -- since the user has already absorbed 
the initial cost of accessing the information, he/she may be 
more willing to deal with other kinds of infomration over that 
channel.

Implication for videomail system -- make sure that there's a very 
good reason for people to use it (eg SIGGRAPH or neuroanatomists --
people who rely on images as part of their daily work).  This 
will develop along unpredictable lines.

Can we draw an evolutionary analogy from S.J. Gould?  The idea that 
there are a limited number of possibilities for vertabrates to 
evolve into, because there are switches on the chromosomes.  Similarly, 
if you have underlying assumptions in your system, it will affect 
the range of possible adaptations.  Thus, users of supercard will 
use it in some predictable ways -- and it will evolve as influenced
by the applications it's designed to support.  The clash between 
application assumptions and supercard assumptions should provide 
some "innovations".


