Cuadros de mando para la gestión del turismo 1 Consideraciones generales

Historical reasoning, like humanistic interpretation more generally, is a process of moving from associative thinking to hypothesis generation to argumentation (Bruner, 1986; van Boxtel & van Drie, 2004). Therefore, as a tool designed to foster historical reasoning, HL must operate as closely to the way historians (experienced and in-) do,

creating a space in which users can think intuitively, associatively, and rationally in turn. Further, the principle of “do no harm” comes into play in its design: HL should fit

seamlessly into the workflows of students and instructors, and should not create any extra work for them. Since, as was discussed in the User Research section, the subjects’ most commonly-used tools are a word processor and a Web browser, this is further

justification for making HL a Web application: within the browser, it fits nicely into subjects’ workflows. The application should also be flexible enough to support the idiosyncratic ways in which users approach notes, sources, and visualizations. HL has been designed to “get out of the way” by supporting users’ goals of interpreting historical data and working towards written argumentation, and not imposing a pedantic structure on their work.

Further, HL has been designed to reflect the sophistication of contemporary Web applications, which are increasingly as functional as desktop software. Web applications like Google Docs (http://docs.google.com), the Evernote Web client

(http://www.evernote.com), and Cloud9 IDE (http://www.c9.io) are as richly interactive and functional as their desktop equivalents, and have all the advantages of being

hypermedia systems that work in the Web. Because of the increasing sophistication of Web applications, it made sense to design HL for the Web rather than an application that would have to be downloaded and configured on a local system. All contemporary computers have a Web browser, meaning those with access to them can also have access to HL.

D. Outcomes

Oftentimes, there is a black box created when a history instructor hands out an essay prompt. The prompt is the input into the system, and the expected output is a cogent, insightful, well-reasoned piece of historical analysis. The processes by which that output will be generated are frequently not specified, or in some cases even thoroughly understood by student or instructor. A successful outcome for HL would be that it renders that black box transparent, that it becomes a tool that enables undergraduates to organize materials and conceptualize their arguments when presented with such a prompt. Further, a successful outcome from the instructor side would be that HL is a useful supplement to pedagogical materials and instruction. From the perspective of stakeholders in this project, a successful outcome would be an intuitive, flexible application that enables the successful outcomes specified for all user groups.

As was described in the User Research section, one of the most striking features in the data was the heterogeneity of the subjects’ approaches when conceptualizing and beginning to write a history paper (see Fig. 2). HL should aim to inculcate an historian’s approach to documents, concepts, and argumentation without railroading users’

workflows. An unsuccessful outcome for HL would be a situation in which a user cannot perform the tasks associated with conceptualizing a history paper in the way that they are accustomed. This would lead to a state in which the historian’s stance towards materials and argumentation would remain unlearned. Another unsuccessful outcome would be if, rather than decreasing the cognitive load of the task by presenting the features discussed above in one application, HL actually increases cognitive load by creating more work both for students and instructors. The goal is that HL should fit seamlessly into the takes

associated with taking a history class, processing the information learned during it, and transforming it into a written argument.

II. Design Rationale A. General Strategy

Although there are many note taking, source annotating, and information

visualizing tools available on the market, there is a paucity of applications that combines all these features and focuses specifically on historical information and reasoning. The design of HL is rooted in the practices, digital and analog, that students and expert historians perform when working on a project: taking notes, reading, thinking about, and organizing documents, and making connections between historical concepts and their own interpretations of them. Because there are many tools that perform the same tasks, HL must be as intuitive and flexible as those tools in order to meet users’ expectations and “get out of the way” to allow them to work toward their goals. Further, HL must be as robust as the most sophisticated contemporary Web applications, fully-featured and stable. Hopefully, by combining the types of interfaces mentioned above with a focus on history and an interactive visualization interface, HL can exceed users’ expectations for current historical research tools. As a digital humanities project, HL has been designed to promote historical interpretation by enabling users to make connections between

historical concepts in a richly visual way without skimping on the textual features – a rich text editor and document editor – that users expect.