From Free-form to Structured Design Notes: A Study of Electronic Engineering Notebooks

labels can be often reused in marking notes, however abstract terminology is difficult to understand (see earlier discussion in Section 7.4.4). On the other hand, specific terms are easier to understand for subjects, but require using more labels to mark notes, and, thus, with growing number of notes, it may become difficult to manage and to remember their usage. Similar patterns of low user-defined keyword reuse were observed in other information indexing studies [Ward 1995]. A combination of both, abstract and concrete terminology may offer a proper solution. Abstract terminology would be mostly pre-defined and used for lower level detail, while concrete terminology would be user-defined and used for higher level terms (chapters, projects names, etc.). A similar approach was suggested by two subjects. Reuse of abstract and concrete terms defined by users 1.67 0.33 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 abstract concrete A vg . n u m b er o f te rm r eu se s . concrete A vg . n u m b er o f te rm r eu se s . Chapter 4: Experiment 78 Section 8. : Results Summary 8. Results Summary 8.1 Note-taking We observed that form-based interface forced subjects to modify their note-taking habits, while free-form interface did not1. Notes were more complete in the free-form conditions than in the form condition. Furthermore, suggestions for flexible forms indicated a user preference for unconstraining interfaces, and thus point towards a free-form approach. Users note-taking habits were idiosyncratic and we could not assess during our experiment to what degree these habits are flexible, or how quickly users form new habits2. 8.2 Structuring Results from our experiment indicated that, to compare interfaces with regard to information structuring, we need to make a distinction between the information structuring mechanisms, used to separate elements of structure and the information categorization required by semantic structuring. Our observations confirmed, that, by virtue of delayed structuring, the free-form interface was easier to use than forms with fixed structure which forced users to break down notes during their creation. While the structuring mechanism is a function of user interface, the terminology used for semantic categorizations is independent of the user interface. We observed difficulties with categorization in both free-form and form-based interfaces. 1. Note-taking habits could be employed within limits of the implementation technology (e.g. screen size, system speed, separate pen-tablet and display). 2. This should be addressed in a future long term field study Chapter 4: Experiment 79 Section 8. : Results Summary Subjects in those conditions employing domain-based terminology had problems with differentiating terms and with their use. These problems were not observed with subjects used their own terminology, which they were, obviously, familiar with. In addition, subjects’ terms tended to be concrete most of the time (71%). Concrete terms, because of their specificity, were rarely reapplied again (0.33 an average reuse of concrete terms in FFU), and thus subjects rarely needed to reconsider their meaning. 8.2. 1 How much categorization is enough? We observed many problems with detailed categorization. Subjects were not used to performing detailed categorizations of their notes, since they employ other means of accessing notes in their note-taking practice. For example, they use page layout and special marks to visually perceive page structure; they use event memory to locate specific information. The combination of disparate and, at the same time, complementary methods allow them to effectively find information in the notes. The form-based interface forced subjects to create more detailed structure than free-form interfaces. Much of that structure was unnecessary, since it did not increase the number of design meeting concepts structured in the FORM condition. We need to consider the purpose for providing structure and categories. Observations from our experiment seem to indicate that providing structure to facilitate human information processing requires quite different approach than providing it to facilitate machine information processing. Detailed categories may be good for machine information processing, however, they seem to be very difficult to use by people, and thus not appropriate for facilitating human information retrieval from notes. We also need to consider the user task. In the context of taking notes from a design project meeting, a small project (like the one used in our experiment) may require less categories than a large one, and thus subjects were overwhelmed with the number of concepts provided for information Chapter 4: Experiment 80 Section 8. : Results Summary categorization. In some cases, this effect might have been compounded by their lack of experience. Furthermore, the difficulties with detailed categorization, and patterns of attribute and relation usage, indicate that one label per object is sufficient for users, and that general linking, rather than semantic, is more appropriate. 8.2. 2 Expert use of terminology Experts had less problems with terminology (both with applying it, as well as with using it during information retrieval). Experts used categorization-based search (“trust” strategies) more often then novices, and were able to find information in a smaller number of categorization-based steps. In addition, a number of expert users noted a positive role of terminology as a reminder and as a help in focusing the process (e.g. what should be covered in a design meeting under particular topics). However, the current findings do not indicate which way of providing terminology would be best. Chapter 4: Experiment 81