Leer y escuchar poemas

Although RO2 is not specifically addressed in this experiment there were several conclusions and issues that emerged which impacted the design and implementation of the mapping tool presented in this thesis. The research objective RO2 is: Determine the parts of the semantic mapping process which are difficult for ordinary users and identify techniques to reduce the difficulty of these parts. This analysis is based on the results derived from the study.

3.7.1 Catural Language superior way of representing ontological

information to ordinary users

As shown in the interview results given and observations from the study some participants were found to be only label matching with the graph-type COMA++ mapping tool. While in the interviews, participants said with the NL prototype mapping tool they read the information provided before answering with comments like ‘I preferred the <L prototype mapping tool because it gives more information which helps to understand what is being asked of you’ from a non-technical user and ‘with the <L prototype mapping tool there is better description for task much more information’ from a technically aware user. Also the majority of participants at 75% said they preferred the NL prototype mapping tool.

3.7.2 A Question & Answer approach aids in mapping navigation

On average mapping correspondences took longer to complete with COMA++, with an overall mean of 41 seconds, than with the NL prototype mapping tool, with an overall mean of 23 seconds, see section 3.5.1. This time includes navigation between candidate correspondences and suggests that using the question and answer approach decrease the time spent navigating through candidate correspondences. In addition in the interviews participants mentioned some other improvement of the Question & Answer approach. First, it allows users to know when to

75

start and when to finish unlike scanning. A non-technical user commented that ‘using COMA++ is harder as you have to scan’. Secondly, question answering is a familiar process for users unlike scanning. A different non-technical user commented that ‘I have never used a system like COMA++’. Finally, navigation is much easier for users using the question and answer approach. A comment from a technically aware user mentioned that ‘scrolling up and down was a bit of a pain with COMA++’.

3.7.3 Confusion with certain ontological terms and candidate

correspondences asked

Throughout the study each participant was first bemused and then baffled when inappropriate candidate correspondences were displayed, for example ‘Violin -> Double Bassist’. The concept descriptions also had certain ontological terms which confused participants, in particular the word owl:Thing, which lead them to answer incorrectly. For example, a non- technical user commented: “If each concept had Thing in its description I would answer mostly the same even if the descriptions were different, for example Tempo - > Composer” and another non-technical user said “I was unsure of some of the terms being used”. These issues could make users lose confidence with the mapping tool. To reduce the confusion, ontology specific terms will need to be eliminated from the descriptions. In addition, showing the benefits of the mappings to the users could keep them engaged in the semantic mapping process even when inappropriate candidate correspondences are displayed.

3.7.4 Different question templates led to different answers

During the course of the study it was observed that participants were answering differently based on the template of the candidate correspondence question being asked, i.e. if “corresponds to” or “similar to” were used, see section 3.6 for further details. It was also observed frequently during the study that when participants went to choose an answer for the task a lot of the time the participant would then go back and read the question again. This may indicate that the participants wanted to respond with an answer that was not available. Using a tagging approach, see section 2.6.6, would allow users to answer in their own words and may also remove the burden on choosing the ‘correct answer’. This approach would also remove the issue of users answering differently based on the template of question being asked, as the question would just ask them what the relation is.

76

3.7.5 Users unaware of any added aid for mapping correspondences

Despite the NL prototype mapping tool interface having a list of the candidate correspondences that the user could navigate as well as an alternative list for each candidate correspondence asked, see section 3.3, the majority of participants in the study mention they did not look at either list and in fact forgot about it (only 3 said they looked at the list). This was despite the list being highlighted to each participant in the training section of the experiment. Some of the comments from the participants were “I didn't pay attention to it” from a non-technical user and” <o I did not notice it and I could not understand it” from another non-technical user. It was hoped that it would aid the participants in making their decision by giving the candidate correspondence some context but instead the participants were more focussed in the candidate correspondences being asked rather than the added support at the side of the screen with a comment given “I did not look at it much if it was more in centre and a bit bigger it might have helped” by ontologically aware participant. This is both positive and negative, with the participants actually reading the information of the task but being unaware of any added support. This indicates that ordinary users were just focussed on the task at hand. In the author’s opinion, this suggests that a mapping system which would just ask candidate correspondences to the user without any navigation may satisfy the needs of ordinary users.

In document Enfoque que sustenta la propuesta (página 45-47)