Hi Astron, Am Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2013, 17:50:46 schrieben Sie: > Hi Björn, > > > Sorry for stepping in here. The results are just what it says in the > > post. Yes, we did an analysis of data that was not gathered for this > > kind of analysis in the first place. As it cannot be used to proof any > > hypothesis (no statistical study can anyhow - read Popper on this > > topic) - the data cannot falsify the hypothesis that more detail is > > worse than less detail - but it can falsify the hypothesis that there > > is no difference between more and less detail icons in this particular > > setting. This is a value. > > So, first of all, the hypothesis makes some sense to me, logically. > > However, the problem here is that the categorisation seems pretty > random: "low-detail" icons have small text on them, have delicate > lines, contain many elements, etc. You don't seem to have published > how you categorised the icon, either (maybe I haven't looked hard > enough).
You haven't: We did an expert rating (that what I wrote - and to add some more flesh to it:) with two experts (Heiko and me) working independently and discussing were categorization differed. > If you look at the comments below the post, I am clearly not > the first to have noticed. This is, btw, not the only concern about > the validity of the more-is-worse analysis. Most people complaining did not read the article well. Unfortunately you find this behavior often in the net. But on the other hand, I do not want to censor even the less appropriate comments. So yes, you are right - there are issues to the validity. Take it as I said before: it is an indicator for the mentioned hypothesis and perhaps someone gets encouraged to pick it up and validate the findings. You know, it really makes me sad how initiatives like these are always bashed upon. During my studies I had a course where we examined the 10 most-cited studies in Psychology from a methodological viewpoint. None of them was even close to bulletproof. Nevertheless they are valid - mostly because people re-did what was done before using (slightly) different methodology. Back to our study: all raw data is freely available. Take it, categorize the icons the way you think it is appropriate and start discussing the difference in results. If you are not satisfied, create a study on your own - the tool you can make this with is freely available - again discuss the results. Untill then: I do not only have an opinion - I have some data that indicates a direction. Please be a bit more moderate if you haven't. I am moderate too - e.g. I do not claim anyone to do anything based on the results (except perhaps trying to falsify the findings on a data base). I really hope to get some support here - we need to go ahead based on research (as good as we can). You see in this and other threads, what happens when we all just talk about our own preferences... All the best, Björn -- Dipl.-Psych. Björn Balazs Business Management & Research T +49 30 6098548-21 | M +49 179 4541949 User Prompt GmbH | Psychologic IT Expertise Grünberger Str. 49, 10245 Berlin | www.user-prompt.com HRB 142277 | AG Berlin Charlottenburg | Geschäftsführer Björn Balazs -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
