Mimi, I was confused about what a faceted system actually is. After
reading what you wrote, my interpretation is that it's when
(1) your data model supports "key: value" pairs attached to items
(2) your UI does sorts and queries based on these key:value pairs.
By that understanding, iTunes is a faceted system with (1) Artist:,
Title:, Album: keys, and (2) a UI that builds queries via navigation with
these keys.
Then "tagsonomy" or "tag soup" would mean
(1) your data model supports "value" tags attached to items. [or, it
supports key:value, but you always use the same key]
(2) your UI does sorts and queries based on these "value" tags.
By this understanding, GMail labels, or any flat non-exclusive-membership
category system, are these key-less "value" tags.
Are these useful definitions? Since I don't think I understand what you
mean, I just want clear definitions so I know I'm not misunderstanding
things.
Brendan
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 06:44:22 -0700, Mimi Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[I thought Brendan's comments might be interesting to the group, since
I'm sure his confusion will be shared by others.]
[For those of you on this list who didn't receive the original emails on
this thread, the context is that we're going to have a staff
presentation of user research the Design team has done on various
classification systems and organizational structures and how the lessons
learned from that research manifests itself in the Chandler UI. Please
scroll down to the last message for context and to find links to the
wiki pages.]
Brendan:
Thanks for the quick feedback Brendan. I've added some examples to the
Glossary page.
Do you feel like you're still feeling fuzzy about what a Faceted system
is? or just unsure about whether the iTunes is truly a faceted system?
The problem is that there are many different flavors of each of these
systems, so it's hard to pin down. In the most liberal sense, iTunes is
definitely a faceted system. Also, in the sense of "the least wrong
system", iTunes is definitely a faceted system...'cause it's sure in
hell not a hierarchy.
I've also responded to your comment on the 3rd wiki page.
On Jul 17, 2005, at 2:21 AM, Brendan O'Connor wrote:
Mimi: looks cool! I put in content-specific comments on parts 2 and 3.
here's one more thing that i figured would be better suited for to
email:
from the Preface glossary: I was initialy confused by "faceted
classification system". Maybe throw in an example: Album:, Artist: mp3
metadata, itunes facet browser (right?? I've read all 3 parts but am
still not sure). You start using the terms a lot in the next section
before fully explaining what they are.
Brendan
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:26:41 -0700, Mimi Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/PrefaceToHierarchyPapers
http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/HierarchyPaper
http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/
HierarchyVersusFacetsVersusTags
Here are 3 more links in preparation for Tuesday's Virtuality
presentation. (The scrollbar in your browser will get very small but,
don't worry, it's mostly a lot of pictures** ;o)
It is in large part a continuation of the issues raised in the Clay
Shirky article, with a few twists and turns: http://
shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html
I will be covering the material on the wiki pages lightly. Most of the
presentation will be focused on how all of this research applies to
the Chandler UI, so it would be best to familiarize yourself with some
of the concepts beforehand. Most of it should be comfortably
recognizable to people, though some of the examples might be a little
out there ;o)
The goal of the papers is really to "make concrete and explicit" the
sort of gut-level shared understanding we all have of the Chandler
data model and how it manifests itself in the UI.
The papers however, are still in the "1st drafts" stage, so
unfortunately you are all in some sense guinea pigs. Therefore, if and
when you come across something that just doesn't make any sense,
please feel free to share your feedback either directly to me or in
the form of comments on the page. This is exactly what I need to
improve these papers for more general consumption.
There is a high-level overview of the 2 hierarchy papers on the
Preface page.
The central question of Tuesday's presentation will be:
Hierarchies are good at telling stories, precisely because they're so
inflexible and immobile. Facets and Tags are great at being flexible,
but horrible at telling stories precisely because they're so flexible
and mobile.
How can we use the best parts of both systems in Chandler so that we
can have the proverbial cake and eat it too?
Thanks!
Mimi
**The wiki is horrible at formatting pages and due to the very wide
images on the page, I would recommend printing out a copy to read the
text and following along on the wiki when you need to refer to images.
--Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
