Designing hypermedia help systems: problems and issues
Authors: A. Ogura, J. Robertson
Venue: Proceedings of the 7th annual international conference on Systems documentation (1989)

Over the past few years we have seen a significant increase in hypertext and hypermedia research; the variety of products now available is quite impressive and it seems we are constantly adding newer and even more innovative hypersystems. Clearly, hypermedia is an idea that has captured the imagination of the computer world and many claims have been made for its utility. Hypersystems have been used for many different types of applications. Borrowing Conklin's taxonomy [6], we find hypertexts used as macroliterary systems (large online libraries with machine-supported links), problem exploration tools (problem-solving, designing, authoring aids), browsing systems (small-scale macroliterary systems with an emphasis on ease of use), and &ldquo;general&rdquo; hypertext technology (systems designed to allow research on hypertext characteristics as well as on hypertext users). Some notable applications include attempts at a &ldquo;dynamic book&rdquo; [18] the &ldquo;electronic book&rdquo; [19] and an electronic encyclopedia (Hyperties [14]) and the use of hypertext for collaborative work (gIBIS [7], NoteCards [15], KMS [1]). Some other interesting educational applications include a system to teach Shakespeare [9] and Steinbeck (Grapevine) [4]. In the area of hypermedia, we are now going beyond merely combining text and graphics, but combining text, graphics, video and audio [11]. A system developed at Carnegie Mellon University uses video segments combined with on-screen question prompts in a hypermedia system for the teaching of ethics [8]. Students explore a case on issue of the right to die (using the Dax Cowart case), creating their own paths through the video segments until they can form their own decisions. There is also increasing interest in the role of artificial intelligence in hypersystems to aid both browsing and searching functions [2] More relevant to documenters, hypersystems are also being developed not only for information presentation as in a on-line help system, but also for electronic publishing and documentation management (both for writing and information presentation as in document delivery systems) [3] [16] [10]. Hypersystems have also made possible more interactive help systems and tutorials. But along with the increasing popularity of hypersystems, or perhaps because of it, hypersystems have also engendered much controversy. Authors and developers often argue over the definition of hypertext or hypermedia, how to design nodes, how to compute links, what models or maps best aid users, and more generally, whether or not hypersystems can, indeed, solve our information access and retrieval problems. In a critique of hypertext systems, Raskin [12] describes hypertexts as a technology that has &ldquo;failed to deliver on their promise&rdquo; citing problems with various technological limitations (storage capacity, speed), social, legal, and economic problems, and more importantly, the lack of a human interface specification. Members of a panel on &ldquo;A critical assessment of hypertext systems&rdquo; [5] commented on the pros and cons of imposing structure, user-created links and nodes, and intelligent support systems, as well as optimal chunk sizes of text, search mechanisms, and information presentation. There seems to be no consensus on what hypersystems can or cannot be used for, no agreement on a user interface or even ideal characteristics of an interface, and no clear answers to questions such as &ldquo;How do we present text to the user?&rdquo; &ldquo;How do we prevent readers from getting lost?&rdquo; &ldquo;How can we support information search as well as browsing?&rdquo; and &ldquo;How can we manage a hypertext help system?&rdquo; At the Information Technology Center at Carnegie Mellon University, we have already developed a hypertext help system (the Andrew Help System) and have been exploring ways in which to create a more usable system that incorporates multi-media. We surveyed the field the various applications currently available in search of answers to the writing, presentation, and management questions we all ask about any online help system, whether hypertext or not. In the initial search for information, we were seeking ways to make the &ldquo;right&rdquo; or &ldquo;correct&rdquo; system, but we quickly became mired in the controversies surrounding the technology. There seemed to be no &ldquo;right&rdquo; or &ldquo;correct&rdquo; that anyone could agree upon. There is even no agreement on the definition of hypertext or hypermedia as yet. We decided, therefore, to step back and first derive some sort of model to work from that we could use to inform our design decisions. The model we will now describe is a taxonomy of issues and problems that have a basis not on application features, but in rhetorical theory. The following discussion will present our rhetorical model of hypersystems and how we have used this model to help us generate the necessary design questions for our own hypermedia help system. Rhetorical situations for HyperHelp As with any other discussion of hypertext and hypermedia, we require a brief definition of terms. We define Hyper-Help as any online help system that uses hypertext or hypermedia characteristics. These characteristics may include nodes and links (user-generated or computed), databases, multiple windows, multiple media (text, graphics, audio, video), and varying levels of user interaction. The Andrew Help System is a HyperHelp system consisting of a database of files with cross-references that the user may choose to navigate. Andrew Help has a history mechanism that records previous nodes the user has visited, a list of all available files presented in its own panel, a rudimentary search and pattern-match facility, and the ability to open new windows onto new files. Because of the object-oriented nature of the underlying system, Andrew Help has the capability of incorporating graphics and animation with the text as well as link to interactive tutorials. As documenters, we must always consider the particular rhetorical situation we are working in. The rhetorical situation is, broadly speaking, simply the audience for the text: the goals purposes of the reader as well as the writer, and any social effects that may influence the readers' and writers' processes. These issues have also been discussed as the &ldquo;context&rdquo; of hypertexts [13]. More specifically, we consider the audience's experience and reading levels, their possible reactions to the text and information, their purpose in reading the document as well as how they may read the document, and the effects of presentation technology and design factors on how well the audience reads, learns, searches, etc.. We have various methodologies ranging from computerized metrics to experimental testing for evaluating documentation, but the bottom line question for evaluation is &ldquo;How well does this document fit the rhetorical situation it will be used in?&rdquo; Minus the jargon, this would translate to &ldquo;How usable is the document?&rdquo; Since HyperHelp systems are still a form of documentation, can we evaluate them based on the same kinds of rhetorical criteria we impose on other types of documents? Working on the assumption that criteria for usability translates across technologies, we started with the question: &ldquo;How well does a HyperHelp interface/system fit the rhetorical situation it will be used in?&rdquo; But what is the rhetorical situation for a HyperHelp? We already discussed the reader (and writer's) purposes and environments as being important components of a rhetorical situation. We would also, because of the nature of the media, include technology as a variable in the rhetorical situation as well. Most of the discussion to date has (we believe incorrectly) focused primarily on technology issues. We also added the nature of the discourse and the nature of the information to be presented as important factors to consider in the rhetorical situation. We then used the categories of 1) reader goals, 2) technology, 3) nature of information and discourse to classify all the problems and issues that we encountered in the current literature as well as to generate additional problems and issues that we found through our own experiences. The following is a more in-depth discussion of the categories in our rhetorical model using examples of how we solved some of our own problems or generated useful design decisions based on the model.